← 441 F.2d 284 - Build of Buffalo, Inc. v. Frank A. Sedita, as Mayor and Chief Executive of the City of Buffalo

Build of Buffalo, Inc. v. Frank A. Sedita, as Mayor and Chief Executive of the City of Buffalo’s Empirical Analysis

441 F.2d 284 · 1971

Citation profile

cited by 87 later decisions

states following

November 2007

most recently cited

61 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently November 2007 · most notably Melvin Carter v. John R. Carlson (1971), Jones v. Diamond (1975)

61 federal appellate · 2 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 Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Douglas v. Alabama · Switzerland Cheese Association Inc v. E Horne's Market Inc · Michigan v. Ohio · General Electric Co. v. Marvel Rare Metals 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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

“[b]y granting the motion of [three defendants] to dismiss (footnote omitted), the district court effectively denied at the same time plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction as against those defendants. (footnote omitted) The resultant denial of an injunction is appealable under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1292(a)(1).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc. · Stanley WILLIAMS Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WALLACE SILVERSMITHS, INC., a Division of HMW Industries, Inc., Defendant-Appellee
“even if injunctive relief were eventually awarded against each of the named individual police defendants (who were not dismissed as parties), it would not at all satisfy plaintiffs' claim for relief from systematic misbehavior at levels of authority higher than that of the patrolman on the beat.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
e.g. Stanley WILLIAMS Et Al., Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. WALLACE SILVERSMITHS, INC., a Division of HMW Industries, Inc., Defendant-Appellee · Plantamura v. Cipolla
“[t]hus, the dismissal against [three defendants] operated as a refusal of a distinct and separate claim for an injunction, for which any other relief that might emerge from the case could never adequately substitute.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
e.g. Abercrombie & Fitch Co. v. Hunting World, Inc. · Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Preferred Capital Investment Co.

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.