Edward S. Burton v. Matanuska Valley Lines, Inc., a Corporation in the Territory of Alaska’s Empirical Analysis
244 F.2d 647 · 1957
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently June 2000 · most notably Burnside v. Byars (1966), National Screen Service Corp. v. Poster Exchange, Inc. (1962)
38 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board · Far East Conference v. United States · Deckert v. Independence Shares Corp. · Frost v. Corporation Commission · Ohio Oil Co. v. Conway
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““necessarily the court must presuppose that in the case at bar it may turn out that plaintiff will ultimately lose. Thus the court may finally find the facts against the plaintiff who procured the temporary injunction. * * * And just as a court must of necessity obtain time in which to determine which party is right upon the facts, so in a substantial number of cases the time is necessarily required to resolve grave, difficult and complicated questions of law. If, in such a case, it is ultimately decided that the party who obtained the temporary injunction cannot win, that in itself does not demonstrate that it was wrong to issue the injunction.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An appeal from an order granting or refusing an interlocutory injunction does not invoke the judicial discretion of the appellate court. The question is not whether or not that court in the exercise of its discretion would make or would have made the order. It was to the discretion of the trial court, not to that of the appellate court, that the law intrusted the granting or refusing of these injunctions, and the only question here is: Does the proof clearly establish an abuse of that discretion?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“But the granting or withholding of an interlocutory injunction rests in the sound judicial discretion of the court of original jurisdiction”
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.