Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 300 F.2d 265 - Cmax, Inc. v. Hall

Cmax, Inc. v. Hall’s Empirical Analysis

300 F.2d 265 · 1962

Citation profile

65
cited by 65 later decisions
May 2024
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 10 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Hoptowit v. Ray (1982), Coursen v. A.H. Robins Co. (1985)

15 federal appellate · 10 district ·

3001962197019801990200020102020decided

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 Landis v. North American Co. · La Buy v. Howes Leather Co. · Louisville Nashville Railroad Company v. G a Maxwell · Louisville Co v. Central Iron & Coal Co

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

  1. “[1] the possible damage which may result from the granting of a stay, [2] the hardship or inequity which a party may suffer in being required to go forward, and [3] the orderly course of justice measured in terms of the simplifying or complicating of issues, proof, and questions of law which could be expected to result from a stay.”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[i]f there [is a discovery] problem [created by a stay, an] application could be made in the district court to permit further discovery proceedings. It may be that [CDWR] will be prejudiced by the delay in the sense that evidence will be obtained, or rulings made, as a result of the [FERC] proceedings, which [could] adversely affect the claims which [CDWR] asserts in the district court. But this is not the kind of prejudice which should move a court to deny a requested postponement. If [CDWR] is prejudiced by such an eventuality it will be because the [FERC] proceedings demonstrate a weakness in its case. And if its case is weak, justice will be served by having that fact revealed prior to the district court trial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[I]f there is even a fair possibility that the stay for which [the requesting party] prays will work damage to [someone] else,”
    1 later decision 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.