Mull v. Ackerman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

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

1. ““Amended Eule 54(b) applies by its terms only ‘When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action.’ In Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 2 Cir., 1959, 273 F.2d 729, 731 , we made it clear that the Eule ‘does not allow a finding of finality * * * where a single claim against multiple parties is dismissed as against some but not all.’ That is precisely this case. Plaintiff asserts a single claim for the injury alleged to have been done him by the taxicab; the order sought to be appealed dismisses the claim only as against Ackerman. Such an order is not a ‘final decision’ under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . As said in Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, supra, ‘a 54(b) certificate is ineffective to make appealable a judgment dismissing the action against some parties but leaving it pending against others.’ The distinctions of Goldlawr asserted by plaintiff are unconvincing. The case is parallel to Lopinsky v. Hertz Drive-Ur-Self System, Inc., 2 Cir., 1951, 194 F.2d 422 , which was disapproved in Goldlawr insofar as it had sustained the application of Rule 54(b). See 6 Moore, Federal Practice, ¶54.34[2], at 247-248 (2d ed. 1953).””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Berkness v. Hawaiian Electric Co.