Surowitz v. Hilton Hotels Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
177 federal appellate · 83 district · 94 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 896 later decisions (8 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2018 · most notably Segal v. Gordon (1972), Beaufort Concrete Company v. Atlantic States Construction Company (1966)
177 federal appellate · 83 district · 94 state decisions — followed in 21 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77A (§ 1 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Surowitz v. Hilton Hotels Corp. · Bosc v. 39 Broadway, Inc.
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 896 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The basic purpose of the Federal Rules is to administer justice through fair trials, not through summary dismissals as necessary as they may be on occasion.”
24 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“was originally adopted and has served since in part as a means to discourage 'strike suits' by people who might be interested in getting quick dollars by making charges without regard to their truth so as to coerce corporate managers to settle worthless claims in order to get rid of them.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Alford v. Shaw · Fradkin v. Ernst““Even pleading of a party represented by an attorney shall be signed by at least one attorney of record in his individual name, whose address shall be stated. A party who is not represented by an attorney shall sign his pleading and state his address. Except when otherwise specifically provided by statute or rule, pleadings need not be verified or accompanied by affidavit. The signature of an attorney constitutes a certificate by him that he has read the pleading; that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief there is good ground to support it; and that it is not interposed for delay. If a pleading is not signed or is signed with intent to defeat the purpose of this rule, it may be stricken as sham and false amd the action may proceed as though the pleading had not been served. For a wilful violation of this rule an attorney may be subjected to appropriate disciplinary action. Similar action may be taken if scandalous or indecent matter is inserted.” (Emphasis supplied)”
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.