Baer v. Chase’s Empirical Analysis
392 F.3d 609 · 2004
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 13 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 86 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Jiminez ex rel. Estate of Serrano v. All American Rathskeller, Inc. (2007), EBC, Inc. v. Clark Building System, Inc. (2010)
11 federal appellate · 13 district · 7 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. § 1125 (§ 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (Lanham Act)) · 17 U.S.C. § 106 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Baltimore Co v. United States · Mellon Bank, N.A. v. Aetna Business Credit, Inc. · Perma Research & Development Co. v. Singer Co. · Kennett-Murray Corp. v. Bone · Stryker Corporation v. Davol Incorporated
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 86 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a party may not create a material issue of fact to defeat summary judgment by filing an affidavit disputing his or her own sworn testimony without demonstrating a plausible explanation for the conflict.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The plaintiff] misunderstands the nature of a [quasi-contract] claim with respect to the statute of limitations.... [His] belief that he was going to be paid if and when the show was a success is irrelevant because his understanding of his oral contract, even if correct, does not govern his quasi-contract claim inasmuch as a quasi-contract claim is not a “real” contract based on mutual consent and understanding of the parties. The essence of a quasi-contract claim is not the expectancy of the parties, but rather the unjust enrichment of one of them. It therefore would be inappropriate to look at [the plaintiffs] expectations of payment, rather than at the services he provided [the defendant].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]t is clear that merely because there is a discrepancy between deposition testimony and the deponent’s later affidavit a district court is not required in all cases to disregard the affida vit.”); Kennett-Murray Corp. v. Bone, 622 F.2d 887 , 893 (5th Cir.1980) (”
3 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.