Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 264 F.2d 591 - Gregory Oskoian, Etc., Movants v. Theobald J. Canuel, Etc.

Gregory Oskoian, Etc., Movants v. Theobald J. Canuel, Etc.’s Empirical Analysis

264 F.2d 591 · 1959

Citation profile

13
cited by 13 later decisions
1
states following
October 1988
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 13 later decisions — most recently October 1988

6 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

601959196019701980decided

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 Milbert v. Bison Laboratories, Inc. · Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Langer · Tunstall v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen · Heddendorf v. Goldfine · Lowry v. International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Shipbuilders & Helpers of America

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

  1. ““If we should now allow this application for an appeal from the interlocutory order denying the motion to dismiss, and if, upon such review, we should conclude to direct the district judge to dismiss the complaint, we would thereby forestall what might well be a long and expensive trial. In Matter of Heddendorf, 1 Cir., 1959, 263 F.2d 887 , we recognized that this new statutory amendment of 28 U.S.C. § 1292 should be used sparingly and ‘only in exceptional cases where an intermediate appeal may avoid protracted or expensive litigation’, as said in Milbert v. Bison Laboratories, Inc., 3 Cir., 1958, 260 F.2d 431, 433 . We went on to point out: ‘Such an exceptional case might be one where the district court has denied a motion to dismiss for want of jurisdiction which raised a novel question and is reluctant to embark upon an extended and costly trial until assured that its decision on the motion to dismiss is sustained.’ That ‘exceptional case’ seems to be present here.””
    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.