Western Helicopter Services, Inc. v. Rogerson Aircraft Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

17 federal appellate · 6 district · 22 state decisions

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

1. “The Supreme Court may answer questions of law certified to it by the Supreme Court of the United States, a Court of Appeals of the United States, a United States District Court, a panel of the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Service or the highest appellate court or the intermediate appellate court of any other state, when requested by the certifying court if there are involved in any proceedings before it questions of law of this state which may be determinative of the cause then pending in the certifying court and as to which it appears to the certifying court there is no controlling precedent in the decisions of the Supreme Court and the intermediate appellate courts of this state.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Johnson v. Gibson · 134 F. Supp. 2d 1191 - Ensley Ex Rel. Estate of Ensley v. Strato-Lift, Inc.

2. “[TJhere is controlling precedent with respect to the first question — Korbut v. Eastman Kodak Co., supra. It is true that Korbut is an extremely brief decision from the Court of Appeals. It is also true that there is contrary precedent from the Ninth Circuit — precedent that the district court normally would follow. But the question is one of Oregon law, not federal law[;] the federal court’s decision was the earlier of the two, and it is the Oregon court’s decision — not that of the Ninth Circuit — that is binding for purposes of the certification law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Western Helicopter Services, Inc. v. Rogerson Aircraft Corp.

3. “The second requirement, viz., that the question certified be one of law, requires that the question be framed in a way that is susceptible of adjudication by way of a pronouncement as to what the law is. If particular facts are pertinent to resolution of the question, those facts must be discernible from the materials provided by the certifying court. Certification, therefore, is not appropriate if disputed facts make questions of law unclear.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Eley v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc.