Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 288 F.2d 80 - Moviecolor Ltd. v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Moviecolor Ltd. v. Eastman Kodak Co.’s Empirical Analysis

288 F.2d 80 · 1961

Citation profile

227
cited by 227 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
7
states following
June 2014
most recently cited

107 federal appellate · 16 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 227 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2014 · most notably Wilson v. Garcia (1985), Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. (1975)

107 federal appellate · 16 district · 7 state decisions

930196119701980199020002010decided

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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Holmberg v. Armbrecht · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Board of Com'rs of Jackson County Kan 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 227 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““ . . . Even under modern liberal rules of pleading ‘justice’ still requires that a plaintiff seeking to escape the statute in such a case shall make ‘distinct averments as to the time when the fraud, mistake, concealment, or misrepresentation was discovered, and what the discovery is, so that the court may clearly see, whether by the exercise of ordinary diligence, the discovery might not have been before made.’ . . . ” ( 288 F.2d at 88 )”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““[W]hen a state has established different periods of limitation for different types of action, a federal court enforcing a federally created claim looks first to federal law to determine the nature of the claim and then to state court interpretations of the statutory catalogue to see where the claim fits into the state scheme. * * * Similarly, a federal court will follow state decisions as to how far a cause of action must be ‘complete’ to have ‘accrued’ under state limitation statutes but will look to federal law to determine what needs be done to advance a federally created right to the level so required * * * ; it will look also to state decisions to determine where the cause of action accrued * * (citations omitted).”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “shall be freely given when justice so requires”
    3 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.