Kinnear-Weed Corp. v. Humble Oil & Refining Co.’s Empirical Analysis
441 F.2d 631 · 1971
Citation profile
65 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 112 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2023 · most notably West Virginia University Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey (1991), Wild v. Rarig (1975)
65 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 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 The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman · Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co. · Toledo Scale Co. v. Computing Scale Co. · Charlson Realty Co. v. United States
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 112 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Certainly one factor that the district court could and did take into account in exercising its discretion to issue the injunction was the harassing and vexatious character of this litigation. We cannot say that the district court abused its discretion in this regard. Kinnear-Weed asserts that the injunction is too broad because it will be prevented from asserting new and additional factual matters not adjudicated in this proceeding. The injunction does no more than embody the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel. Kinnear-Weed has had its day in court on the present issues — not once, but several times. We interpret this injunction to preclude Kinnear-Weed from raising any of the issues presented in its original patent infringement suit ... Id. at 637.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The general rule is that the district court can award such fees and costs when an unfounded action or defense is maintained in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly or for oppressive reasons. 6 J. Moore, Federal Practice § 54.77(2) at 1352 (2d Ed. 1966). If there ever was a case that fits this general rule, this is it. [ Id. at 637.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Appellant] argues that the district court erred in awarding costs, including attorneys' fees and expert witness fees to Humble”
1 later decision 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.