Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 411 F.2d 365 - The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman

The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman’s Empirical Analysis

411 F.2d 365 · 1969

Citation profile

3,220
cited by 3,220 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
11
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

2,508 federal appellate · 5 district · 135 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3,220 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably National Labor Relations Board v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America (1970), Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp. (1993)

2,508 federal appellate · 5 district · 135 state decisions — followed in 11 states

1.4k01969197019801990200020102020decided

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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Glasser v. United States · Crowell v. Benson · Rogers v. Missouri Pacific Railroad

Cited together with McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine · Erie Co v. Tompkins · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Harlow v. Fitzgerald

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 3,220 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “On motions for directed verdict and for judgment notwithstanding the verdict the Court should consider all of the evidence—not just that evidence which supports the non-mover's case—but in the light and with all reasonable inferences most favorable to the party opposed to the motion. If the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the Court believes that reasonable men could not arrive at a contrary verdict, granting of the motions is proper. On the other hand, if there is substantial evidence opposed to the motions, that is, evidence of such quality and weight that reasonable and fair-minded men in the exercise of impartial judgment might reach different conclusions, the motions should be denied, and the case submitted to the jury.”
    562 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “A party who moves for a directed verdict at the close of the evidence offered by an opponent may offer evidence in the event that the motion is not granted, without having reserved the right so to do and to the same extent as if the motion had not been made. A motion for a directed verdict that is not granted is not a waiver of trial by jury even though all parties to the action have moved for directed verdicts. A motion for a directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor. The order of the court granting a motion for a directed verdict is effective without any assent of the jury.”
    17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The Substantial Evidence or Reasonable Man Test.”
    14 later decisions 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.