Stichting Ter Behartiging Van de Belangen Van Oudaandeelhouders In Het Kapitaal Van Saybolt International B.V. v. Schreiber’s Empirical Analysis
407 F.3d 34 · 2005
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably Globecon Group, LLC v. Hartford Fire Insurance (2006), Uzdavines v. Weeks Marine, Inc. (2005)
23 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
Relies on Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Hanna v. Plumer · Salve Regina College v. Russell · Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. Patterson · Neumeier v. Kuehner
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a party both takes a position that is inconsistent with one taken in a prior proceeding, and has had that earlier position adopted by the tribunal to which it was advanced.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he evidence produced by a nonmoving party’s silence is not sufficiently weighty to carry a moving party’s burden in a motion for summary judgment. In other words, the plaintiffs motion for summary judgment must stand or fall on the merits of the evidence adduced.... The propriety of drawing an inference against the defendants in this action based on their invocation of the privilege is especially problematic in the context of a motion for summary judgment, where a court is admonished to construe all evidence, including the defendants’ silence, in a light most favorable to the non-moving party.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[W]ere certification available to us, we might ... seek guidance from the New Jersey Supreme Court on the matter. But certification of the question to the New Jersey Supreme Court is not an option, because, under Rule 2:12A-1 of that court, certification is accepted by that court only from the Third Circuit.”). 4 . See, e.g., Am. Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U.S. 443 , 458-62, 114 S.Ct. 981 , 127 L.Ed.2d 285 (1994) (Stevens, J., concurring in part and concurring the judgment) (referring to the Jensen doctrine as”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.