Progress Development Corporation, a Corporation and Modern Community Developers, Inc., a Corporation v. James C. Mitchell’s Empirical Analysis
286 F.2d 222 · 1961
Citation profile
45 federal appellate · 6 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 95 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2024 · most notably Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. (1977), University of Texas v. Camenisch (1981)
45 federal appellate · 6 district · 8 state decisions
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 Shelley v. Kraemer · Tenney v. Brandhove · Snowden v. Hughes · Sartor v. Arkansas Natural Gas Corp. · Barrows v. Jackson
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 95 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(I)t is well established that the issuance of a temporary injunction rests in the sound discretion of the trial court. On appeal, an order granting or denying such an injunction will not be disturbed unless there is a clear showing of an abuse of the discretion so exercised.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““ * * * If summary judgment is appropriate on this ground after a preliminary hearing only, then the preliminary hearing becomes in fact a trial on the merits and its whole purpose is lost. In granting summary judgment at this stage of the proceeding, the trial court denied plaintiffs their right to a trial by jury on Count III. ‘In the very "proper endeavor to terminate a litigation before it * * * [the district court] overlooked considerations which make the summary judgment an inappropriate means to that very desirable end.’ Sartor v. Arkansas [Natural] Gas Corp., 1944, 321 U.S. 620 , 627, 64 S.Ct. 724 , 729, 88 L.Ed. 967 . Summary judgment may properly be entered where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. That is not this case. It cannot be invoked to deprive litigants of their right to trial by jury if there remain genuine issues of material fact to be tried. Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Northwest National Bank, 7 Cir., 1955, 228 F.2d 391 , 395, and cases therein cited. “While the district court heard considerable evidence, a final hearing on the merits did not take place. * * * ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage““It is our considered judgment that the complaint on its face states a federal cause of action, Snowden v. Hughes, 1944, 321 U.S. 1, 7, 8, 10 , 64 S.Ct. 397 , 88 L.Ed. 497 ; Miles v. Armstrong, 7 Cir., 1953, 207 F.2d 284, 286 , and that the resale policy of plaintiffs as found by the district court does not bar them from enforcing their rights under the relevant sections of the Civil Rights Act.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.