United States v. Dibble’s Empirical Analysis
429 F.2d 598 · 1970
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 18 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co. (1989), Egger v. Phillips (1983)
51 federal appellate · 18 district · 15 state decisions — followed in 10 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.
Relationships
Relies on Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Automatic Radio Manufacturing Co. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · In re Whittington · United States v. Western Electric Co.
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 113 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]n official record is authenticated by the testimony of a witness who knows and attests to the facts stated in Rule 44 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““A summary judgment is neither a method of avoiding the necessity for proving one’s case nor a clever procedural gambit whereby a claimant can shift to his adversary his burden of proof on one or more issues. (Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. [1969] 398 U.S. 144 , 90 S.Ct. 1598 , 26 L.Ed. (sic) 142.) To obtain a judgment in favor of a claimant pursuant to his complaint, counterclaim or cross-claim, the moving party must offer evidence sufficient to support a finding upon every element of his claim for relief, except those elements admitted by his adversary in his pleadings, or by stipulation, or otherwise during the course of pretrial. A plaintiff seeking summary judgment who has failed to produce such evidence on one or more essential elements of his cause of action is no more ‘entitled to a judgment’ (Rule 56(c) Fed.R.Civ.Proc.) than is a plaintiff who has fully tried his case and who has neglected to offer evidence sufficient to support a finding on a material issue upon which he bears the burden of proof. (See 6 J. Moore, Federal Practice (2d ed. 1966) * * * § 56.-22[2], at 2825.) In either situation there is a failure of proof.” —United States v. Dibble, 429 F.2d 598, 601 (9 Cir. 1970), quoted in Lloyd v. Lawrence, 472 F.2d 313, 318 (5 Cir. 1973).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“be made on personal knowledge, . . . and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein.”
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.