Grove Fresh Distributors Incorporated v. Everfresh Juice Company Grove Fresh Distributors Incorporated’s Empirical Analysis
24 F.3d 893 · 1994
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 3 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 123 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Lugosch III v. Pyramid Company of Onondaga Llc (2006), 20 Cal. 4th 1178 - NBC Subsidiary (KNBC-TV), Inc. v. Superior Court (1999)
39 federal appellate · 3 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
Relies on Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia · Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart · Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. · Press-Enterprise Company v. Superior Court of California Riverside County · Globe Newspaper Company v. Superior Court for County of Norfolk
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 123 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he First Amendment presumes that there is a right of access to proceedings and documents which have `historically been open to the public' and where the disclosure of which would serve a significant role in the functioning of the process in question”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“In light of the values which the presumption of access endeavors to promote, a necessary corollary to the presumption is that once found to be appropriate, access should be immediate and contemporaneous. Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 , 96 S.Ct. 2791 , 49 L.Ed.2d 683 (1976); Continental Illinois Securities Litigation, 732 F.2d at 1310 . The newsworthiness of a particular story is often fleeting. To delay or postpone disclosure undermines the benefit of public scrutiny and may have the same result as complete suppression. “[E]ach passing day may constitute a separate and cognizable infringement of the First Amendment.” Nebraska Press Ass’n v. Stuart, 423 U.S. 1327, 1329 , 96 S.Ct. 251, 254 , 46 L.Ed.2d 237 (U.S. Neb.1975).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“It is apparent ... that intervention is the procedurally appropriate course for third-party challenges to protective orders.... Hence, [the defendants'] jurisdictional challenges are unavailing.”
3 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.