Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 310 F.2d 805 - Bateman v. Ford Motor Co.

Bateman v. Ford Motor Co.’s Empirical Analysis

310 F.2d 805 · 1962

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
April 2008
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently April 2008

5 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

6019621970198019902000decided

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 O'Brien v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. · Joseph Bancroft & Sons Co. v. Shelley Knitting Mills, Inc. · Sims v. Greene · Bateman v. Ford Motor Co. · Bach v. Friden Calculating Mach. 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““An automobile dealer may bring suit against any automobile manufacturer engaged in commerce, in any district court of the United States in the district in which said manufacturer resides, or is found, or has an agent, without respect to the amount in controversy, and shall recover the damages by him sustained and the cost of suit by reason of the failure of said automobile manufacturer from and after August 8, 1956, to act in good faith in performing or complying with any of the terms or provisions of the franchise, or in terminating, canceling, or not renewing the franchise with said dealer: Provided, That in any such suit the manufacturer shall not be barred from asserting in defense of any such action the failure of the dealer to act in good faith. Aug. 8, 1956, c. 1038, § 2, 70 Stat. 1125 .””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It is clear a motion under Rule 41(b) for dismissal at the end of plaintiff’s case, that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief, is proper in a case without a jury. Upon granting such a motion the court should make findings of fact and conclusions of law pursuant to Rule 52(a). Upon review the findings must be accepted unless clearly erroneous. It is equally clear that in a jury case the question only can be one of law.”
    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.