Stanley v. Alcock’s Empirical Analysis
310 F.2d 17 · 1962
Citation profile
5 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently September 1983
5 federal appellate ·
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 Alabama Great Southern Railroad v. Louisville & Nashville Railroad · Robbins v. Milner Enterprises, Inc. · Coleman v. Alcock
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An examination of the disclosures made in this case and a consideration of the opposing inferences which may be drawn therefrom indicates a genuine issue of fact to be tried. We hold that the court below erred in deciding that there was no `genuine issue as to material facts;' to the contrary, we find a clear issue as to the equitable ownership of Southern Creosoted, supported by competent evidence tending to prove the allegations made by plaintiff.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“That contrary to the recitation contained in said paragraph 4 [of the stipulation], the true facts with respect to the aforesaid two corporations are such that there is no contractual, financial or other relationship existing directly between the two said corporations other than certain parties individually own stock separately in each of said corporations, and that therefore Southern Creosoted Lumber Co., Inc. is not a wholly owned subsidiary of Florida-Carolina Lumber Company * * *.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stanley v. Alcock“This Court has examined the depositions on file in this cause, the affidavits submitted and the pleadings, and it is apparent to the Court that there is no genuine issue as to the material facts. The Southern Creosoted Lumber Company was not a wholly owned subsidiary of Florida Carolina Lumber Company at any time and therefore plaintiff cannot recover in this action and that defendants are entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Stanley v. Alcock
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.