Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 242 F.2d 873 - Bruce Construction Corp. v. United States ex rel. Westinghouse Electric Supply Co.

Bruce Construction Corp. v. United States ex rel. Westinghouse Electric Supply Co.’s Empirical Analysis

242 F.2d 873 · 1957

Citation profile

173
cited by 173 later decisions
10
states following
August 2015
most recently cited

106 federal appellate · 4 district · 16 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 173 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably National Screen Service Corp. v. Poster Exchange, Inc. (1962), Boazman v. Economics Laboratory, Inc. (1976)

106 federal appellate · 4 district · 16 state decisions — followed in 10 states

6801957196019701980199020002010decided

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 Whitaker v. Coleman · Engl v. Ætna Life Ins. · Radio City Music Hall Corp. v. United States · Palmer v. Chamberlin

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

  1. “[W]hen a movant makes out a convincing showing that genuine issues of fact are lacking, we require that the adversary adequately demonstrate by receivable facts that a real, not formal, controversy exists, and, of course, he does not do that by mere denial or holding back evidence.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““[w]e have long recognized that no matter how enticing, in an era of congested dockets, is a device to dispose of cases without the delay and expense of traditional trials with their sometime cumbersome and time-consuming characteristics, summary judgment was not devised for, must not be used as, a substitute for trial. Its wholesome utility is, in advance of trial, to test, not as formerly on bare contentions found in the legal jargon of pleadings, but on the intrinsic merits, whether there is in actuality a real basis for relief or defense. Consequently, where the proceedings have indicated that a genuine issue existed, we have consistently rejected appealing shortcuts and not the less so even though it was likely that on a trial, the trier would resolve the disputed issues as one of fact in the same manner as when thought to have been one of law alone.””
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"But, equally vigorous in giving full range to this mechanism, we have just as consistently rejected any notions that pretense, or apparent formal controversy can thwart application of this rule or hamstring the court in determining whether it is a proper case for it. Consequently, when a movant makes out a convincing showing that genuine issues of fact are lacking, we require that the adversary adequately demonstrate by receivable facts that a real, not formal, controversy exists, and, of course, he does not do that by mere denial or holding back evidence."”
    4 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.