Troupe v. Chicago, Duluth & Georgian Bay Transit Co.’s Empirical Analysis
234 F.2d 253 · 1956
Citation profile
112 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 145 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2019 · most notably City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc. (1981), Michalic v. Cleveland Tankers, Inc. (1960)
112 federal appellate · 5 district · 4 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1333 · 28 U.S.C. § 1653 · 28 U.S.C. § 1873
Relies on American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn · Hormel v. Helvering · United States v. Atkinson · Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn · Palmer v. Hoffman
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 145 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to •which he objects and the grounds of his objection. Opportunity shall be given to make the objection out of the hearing of the jury.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A litigant surely has the right to assume that a federal trial judge knows the elementary substantive legal rules, long established by the precedents, and that therefore the judge will act accordingly, without prompting by the litigant's lawyer.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f there is to be a plain error exception to Rule 51 at all, it should be confined to the exceptional case where the error has seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.”
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.