Yanish v. Barber’s Empirical Analysis
232 F.2d 939 · 1956
Citation profile
54 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2015 · most notably DeMarco v. United States (1974), Vuitton Fils v. Carousel Handbags (1979)
54 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 state decisions
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 United States v. United Mine Workers of America · McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co. · Helvering v. Gowran · Lewellyn v. Electric Reduction Co. · Murray v. United States
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We have carefully read and considered the entire record, and while we think it is always desirable, on a trial to a judge without a jury, that the facts should be found to aid us in understanding the basis of the decision, we are nevertheless of opinion that here the record considered as a whole does not present a genuine issue as to any material fact— in view of which it would be both a waste of time and a needless expense to send the case back to the District Court for special findings of fact.””
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““* * * It is obvious that a fine exceeding the indemnity to which the complainant is entitled is purely punitive, and, notwithstanding the foregoing precedents to the contrary, we think that when it is imposed by way of indemnity to the aggrieved party it should not exceed his actual loss incurred by the violation of the injunction, including the expenses of the proceedings necessitated in presenting the offense for the judgment of.the court. We are also of the opinion that when the fine is not limited to the taxable costs it should not exceed in amount the loss and expenses established by the evidence before the court. Unless it is based upon evidence showing the amount of the loss and expenses, the amount must necessarily be arrived at by conjecture, and in this sense it would be merely an arbitrary decision. * * *»”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'do[ ] not review the evidence as an original fact finding tribunal.'”
2 later decisions 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.