Milos v. Ford Motor Co.’s Empirical Analysis
317 F.2d 712 · 1963
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently December 2001 · most notably Edward C. Rea and 22 Ford Inc., a Corporation v. Ford Motor Company, a Corporation (1974), Don Marquis v. Chrysler Corporation, Don Marquis v. Chrysler Corporation and Chrysler Motors Corporation, Don Marquis v. Chrysler Corporation, Chrysler Motors Corporation and Chrysler Realty Corporation (1978)
42 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
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 Woodard v. General Motors Corp. · Bateman v. Ford Motor Co. · Pierce Ford Sales, Inc. v. Ford Motor Co. · Staten Island Motors, Inc. v. American Motors Sales Corp.
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“recommendation, endorsement, exposition, persuasion, urging or argument”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“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.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The argument that termination before expiration [of the franchise agreement] is prima facie evidence of a violation is untenable. The Act expressly conditions recovery of damages on a failure of the manufacturer to act in good faith. Termination in itself does not suffice.”
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.