Gauck v. Meleski’s Empirical Analysis
346 F.2d 433 · 1965
Citation profile
63 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently July 2011 · most notably Freeman v. Continental Gin Co. (1967), Kennett-Murray Corp. v. Bone (1980)
63 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 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 United States v. Diebold, Inc. · Dressler v. MV Sandpiper · Dallas County v. Commercial Union Assurance Co. · Monarch Insurance v. Spach
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Because of the peculiarly elusive nature of the term ‘negligence’ and the necessity that the trier of facts pass upon the reasonableness of the conduct in all the circumstances in determining whether it constitutes negligence, it is the rare personal injury case which can be disposed of by summary judgment, even where the historical facts are concededly undisputed.” Id. at 437 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“assess[ ] the probative value of any evidence presented to it, for this would be an unwarranted extension of the summary judgment device.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Summary judgment will not usually be as. feasible in negligence cases, where the standard of the reasonable man must be applied to conflicting testimony, as it is in other kinds of litigation. A study made in one district showed that in 292 negligence cases pending in a particular year, only one motion for summary judgment was made and that was denied. It would be a mistake to conclude from such figures that summary judgment is never appropriate in a negligence action. “Summary judgment has been properly granted on motion by defendant in negligence cases where it conclusively appeared that plaintiff was barred by law from recovery. In some cases defendant has shown that the person who committed the tort was not defendant’s agent, and thus defendant was not responsible for his conduct. In other cases plaintiff has been shown to be not within the class entitled to recover under a particular act. In still other cases plaintiff was found to have surrendered such rights as he might have had. Of course this does not mean that all negligence actions are to be decided on motions for summary judgment where defendant raises a legal defense; in most such cases there are issues of fact relating to the defense, and the motion will be denied. But where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the defense is good as a matter of law, the motion should be granted. “Issues of negligence and contributory negligence generally have to be tried, although there are some instances in ”
2 later decisions 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.