Lundgren v. Freeman’s Empirical Analysis
307 F.2d 104 · 1962
Citation profile
173 federal appellate · 6 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 235 later decisions — most recently June 2014 · most notably United States v. McConney (1984), Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co. (1963)
173 federal appellate · 6 district · 32 state decisions — followed in 16 states
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 United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Duberstein D Stanton · General Electric Co. v. Local 205, United Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers · Orvis v. Higgins
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 235 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is a finding based on the `fact-finding tribunal's experience with the mainsprings of human conduct.' A conclusion of law would be a conclusion based on application of a legal standard.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“* * * Findings of fact shall not be set aside unless clearly erroneous, and due regard shall be given to the opportunity of the trial court to judge of the credibility of the witnesses * * *”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The Oregon general interest statute provides not only that interest is payable on moneys after they become ‘due’ (ORS §82.010(l)(a)), and on money due upon the settlement of matured accounts ‘from the day the balance is ascertained’ (ORS §82.010(l)(d)), but also provides that interest on judgment and decrees for the payment of money shall be from the date of their entry. Oregon Revised Statutes, §82.010(l)(b). The last is true even if there is a subsequent appeal — if the judgment is affirmed. But if the judgment is modified on appeal, interest runs as of the date of modification. (Compton v. Hammond Lumber Co., 1936, 154 Or. 650 , 61 P. 2d 1257 ). The policy behind these provisions seems to be that once a balance due has been ascertained, interest should run from this date, and that one party’s having the right to have the correctness of the determination further litigated, as by motion for new trial or appeal, should have no effect if such further litigation be unsuccessful. “We think that, in the application of this policy, the Oregon courts would hold that interest runs from the date of the award. The parties selected arbitrators, rather than a court, as the body that would, in the first instance, determine the amount due. This they had a right to do; this the law encourages them to do. It should be the rule, rather than the exception, that when arbitrators hand down an award the parties will comply with it, without the necessity of court proceedings, just as it is (or s”
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.