Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 232 F.2d 371 - Julia T. Cellini v. Edward K. Moss

Julia T. Cellini v. Edward K. Moss’s Empirical Analysis

232 F.2d 371 · 1956

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
5
states following
July 1995
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 2 district · 20 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently July 1995 · most notably Mazaleski v. Treusdell (1977), Northrip v. Montgomery Ward & Co. (1974)

18 federal appellate · 2 district · 20 state decisions

20019561960197019801990decided

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.

Relationships

Relies on Sartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp. · Arnstein v. Porter · Subin v. Goldsmith · Garrett Biblical Institute v. American University

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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Summary judgment is a useful device for disposing of meritless tort claims. But since on a trial of this case plaintiff may be able to elicit from defendant facts which defendant had a duty to observe and plaintiff did not and which may prove plaintiff’s case, and since defendant’s demeanor on the stand in testifying on these matters may also lead to inferences favorable to plaintiff, we cannot conclude that ‘there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.’ Rule 56(c), Fed.R.Civ.P., 28 U. S.C.A.””
    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.