Cross v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

13 federal appellate · 4 district · 10 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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"A judge may not, on a motion for summary judgment, draw fact inferences. Such inferences may be drawn only on a trial. Cross v. United States, 336 F.2d 431, 433 ; Empire Electronics Co. v. United States, 311 F.2d 175, 180 ."”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 6 Ill. App. 3d 395 - Roberts v. Dahl · 724 F. Supp. 1132 - Amalgamet Inc. v. Underwriters at Lloyd's

2. “(d) Travel as a form of education. Subject to tbe provisions of paragraph (b) and (e) of this section, expenditures for travel (including travel while on sabbatical leave) as a form of education are deductible only to the extent such expenditures are attributable to a period of travel that is directly related to the duties of the individual in his employment or other trade or business. Eor this purpose, a period of travel shall be considered directly related to the duties of an individual in his employment or other trade or business only if the major portion of the activities during such period is of a nature which directly maintains or improves skills required by the individual in such employment or other trade or business. The approval of a travel program by an employer or the fact that travel is accepted by an employer in the fulfillment of its requirements for retention of rate of compensation, status or employment, is not determinative that the required relationship exists between the travel involved and the duties of the individual in his particular position. (e) Travel away from home. (1) * * * The rules set forth in this paragraph are subject to the provisions of section 162(a) (2), relating to deductibility of certain traveling expenses, and section 274(e) and (d), relating to allocation of certain foreign travel expenses and substantiation required, respectively, and the regulations thereunder.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Marlin v. Commissioner

3. ““Summary judgment is particularly inappropriate where ‘the inferences which the parties seek to have drawn deal with questions of motive, intent and subjective feelings and reactions.’ Empire Electronics Co. v. United States, 311 F.2d 175, 180 (2d Cir. 1962); See Alabama Great So. R. R. v. Louisville & Nashville R. R., 224 F.2d 1, 5 [ 50 A.L.R.2d 1302 ] (5th Cir. 1955); Subin v. Goldsmith, 224 F.2d 753, 758 (2d Cir. 1955). ‘ “A judge may not, on a motion for summary judgment, draw fact inferences. * * * Such inferences may be drawn only on a trial.” ’ Bragen v. Hudson County News Co., 278 F.2d 615, 618 (3d Cir. 1960). While we have recently emphasized that ordinarily the bare allegations of the pleadings, unsupported by specific evidentiary data, will not alone defeat a motion for summary judgment, Dressler v. M/V Sandpiper, 331 F.2d 130 (2d Cir. 1964), this principle does not justify summary relief where, as here, the disputed questions of fact turn exclusively on the credibility of movants’ witnesses.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Borowsky v. Borowsky