Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 228 F.2d 783 - Julius Kayser & Co. v. Textron, Inc.

Julius Kayser & Co. v. Textron, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

228 F.2d 783 · 1956

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
2
states following
May 2006
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently May 2006

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

80195619601970198019902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Appellate journey

reviewedthe decision below (from North Carolina Western District Court)

Relationships

Relies on National Bank v. Hall · Utley v. Donaldson · City of Greenville v. Washington American League Baseball Club · Continental Insrance Co. of New York City v. Kyle · Holliday v. Pegram

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““In reaching our conclusions we have not relied upon evidence purporting to establish a ‘custom’ that the undefined term ‘occupancy’ in leases of textile plants meant occupancy for manufacturing operations, and not entry merely to prepare the property for such use. The evidence offered by Textron, relating to Textron’s own experience, was not shown either to have been general in character, in New England or South Carolina, or of such uniformity and duration as to charge Kayser with knowledge. * * * ””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.