George J. Gallon v. The Lloyd-Thomas Company, a Corporation’s Empirical Analysis
264 F.2d 821 · 1959
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 3 district · 21 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably Dependahl v. Falstaff Brewing Corp. (1981), Community Collaborative of Bridgeport, Inc. v. Ganim (1997)
37 federal appellate · 3 district · 21 state decisions — followed in 13 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
Relies on Stern v. Board of Levee Commissioners · Pinataro v. Appellate Division of the Supreme Court · Simms v. Andrews · Southern Railway Company v. United States
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"When issues not raised by the pleadings are tried by express or implied consent of the parties, they shall be treated in all respects as if they had been raised in the pleadings * * *"”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The purpose of an amendment to conform to proof is to bring the pleadings in line with the actual issues upon which the case was tried; therefore an amendment after judgment is not permissible which brings in some entirely extrinsic issue or changes the theory on which the case was actually tried, even though there is evidence in the record — introduced as relevant to some other issue — which would support the amendment. This principle is sound, since it cannot be fairly said that there is any implied consent to try an issue where the parties do not squarely recognize it as an issue in the trial.” 3 Moore’s Federal Practice § 15.13 [2], at 991-92 (2d ed. 1968).”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In the instant case the plaintiffs have apparently entirely ignored the provisions of Rule 15 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 15(a), after stating when a party may amend his pleadings `as a matter of course', provides that: `Otherwise a party may amend his pleading only by leave of court * * * and leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.' Subd. (b) of Rule 15 provides for liberality in permitting the parties to amend their pleadings to conform to the evidence `even after judgment.'”
2 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.