Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 35 F.3d 1134 - Gateway Eastern Railway Co. v. Terminal Railroad

Gateway Eastern Railway Co. v. Terminal Railroad’s Empirical Analysis

35 F.3d 1134 · 1994

Citation profile

72
cited by 72 later decisions
2
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Roth v. Lutheran General Hospital (1995), Scotts Company v. United Industries Corporation (2002)

21 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

360199420002010decided

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 Roland Machinery Company v. Dresser Industries Inc · Abbott Laboratories v. Mead Johnson & Co. · American Hospital Supply Corp. v. Hospital Products Ltd. · International Kennel Club of Chicago, Inc. v. Mighty Star, Inc. · United States v. Koen

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

  1. “No restraining order or preliminary injunction shall issue except upon the giving of security by the applicant, in such sum as the court deems proper, for the payment of such costs and damages as may be incurred or suffered by any party who is found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We have stated that showing injury to goodwill can constitute irreparable harm that is not compensable by an award of money damages.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““the court must then determine how likely that success is, because this affects the balance of relative harms.... The more likely the plaintiff is to win, the less heavily need the balance of harms weigh in his favor; the less likely he is to win, the more need it weigh in his favor.””
    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.