Consolidated Sun Ray, Inc. v. Oppenstein’s Empirical Analysis
335 F.2d 801 · 1964
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently November 1992 · most notably My Bread Baking Co. v. Cumberland Farms, Inc. (1968), Pepsi-Cola Metropolitan Bottling Co. v. Checkers, Inc. (1985)
25 federal appellate · 1 district · 10 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 Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. National Labor Relations Board · Armstrong Paint & Varnish Works v. Nu-Enamel Corp. · Chicago St Ry Co v. Minneapolis Civic & Commerce Ass'n · Cleo Syrup Corp. v. Coca-Cola Co. · My-T Fine Corp. v. Samuels
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Making a corporation a supplemental part of a economic unit and operating it without sufficient funds to meet obligations to those who must deal with it would be circumstantial evidence tending to show either an improper purpose or reckless disregard of the rights of others.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“If [plaintiff] were acting as an agent for [defendant] * * * he would not, in good faith, have been justified in demanding a rental in excess of what [defendant] owed. A reasonable inference from [plaintiff's] exorbitant demands far greater than the provisions of the lease called for is that he had resumed possession in his own right and not as an agent for [defendant].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““ ‘Similarly, where a lease has been repudiated by a tenant and the premises abandoned, and there are no covenants in the lease to the contrary, the landlord may rest on his contract and sue for each installment of rent as it falls due, or he may take possession of the premises, relet them, and recover from the tenant any damages suffered thereby.’ ” (Emphasis added.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hurwitz v. Kohm
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.