Snyder v. Eastern Auto Distributors, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
357 F.2d 552 · 1966
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently October 2003 · most notably Volkswagen Interamericana, S.A. v. Rohlsen (1966), Lee v. Ply*Gem Industries, Inc. (1979)
14 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1221 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1222 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1391
Relies on International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Fourco Glass Company v. Transmirra Products Corporation · United States v. Scophony Corp. of America · Lumiere v. Mae Edna Wilder, Inc. · Shealy v. Challenger Manufacturing Co.
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A corporation may be sued in any judicial district in which it is incorporated or licensed to do business or is doing business, and such judicial district shall be regarded as the residence of such corporation for venue purposes.”
3 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. Aug. 8, 1956, c. 1038, § 2, 70 Stat. 1125 .””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]he focal time in determining ... whether venue is proper is when the cause of action arose.”
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.