Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 271 F.2d 709 - Richfield Oil Corp. v. Karseal Corp.

Richfield Oil Corp. v. Karseal Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

271 F.2d 709 · 1959

Citation profile

77
cited by 77 later decisions
3
states following
February 2001
most recently cited

48 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently February 2001 · most notably Joseph E. Seagram and Sons, Inc., and the House of Seagram, Inc. v. Hawaiian Oke and Liquors, Ltd., McKesson and Robbins, Inc. v. Hawaiian Oke and Liquors, Ltd., Barton Distilling Company v. Hawaiian Oke and Liquors, Ltd. (1969), Lessig v. Tidewater Oil Co. (1964)

48 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions

330195919601970198019902000decided

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 Glasser v. United States · Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc. · Story Parchment Co. v. Paterson Parchment Paper Co. · Palmer v. Hoffman · Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc.

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

  1. “we might hazard a guess that it would have been a difficult task, even by stating distinctly the grounds of the objection, to have caused the court to change its previously announced position.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Accordingly, Richfield's objection to the court's instructions is not available to it on this appeal. But we have nevertheless considered the question as to whether giving the instruction was error.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the plaintiff is not required to prove with mathematical certainty the amount of its damage resulting from a defendant's violation of the antitrust laws.”
    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.