Lloyd v. Gill’s Empirical Analysis
406 F.2d 585 · 1969
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2005 · most notably Taylor v. Illinois (1988), COELHO (1992)
18 federal appellate · 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
Relies on McAllister v. United States · In Re Disbarment of Isserman · English v. Mattson · Brown v. Schwartz
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In reviewing a judgment of a trial court sitting without a jury in admiralty, the Court of Appeals may not set aside the judgment below unless it is clearly erroneous. No greater scope of review is exercised by appellate tribunals in admiralty cases than they exercise under Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'may not be granted unless the facts discovered are of such nature that they will probably change the result if a new trial is granted, ... they have been discovered since the trial and could not by the exercise of due diligence have been discovered earlier, and ... they are not merely cumulative or impeaching.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lanier v. Lanier · COELHO“may not be granted unless . . . the facts discovered are of such nature that they will probably change the result if a new trial is granted, . . . they have been discovered since the trial and could not by the exercise of due diligence have been discovered earlier, and . . . they are not merely cumulative or impeaching”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Taylor v. Illinois
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.