Bradshaw v. Thompson’s Empirical Analysis
454 F.2d 75 · 1972
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 6 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Acosta v. Honda Motor Co. (1983), Garcia v. Koch Oil Co. of Texas Inc. (2003)
20 federal appellate · 6 district · 11 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 Beacon Theaters Inc v. C Westover · Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood · La Buy v. Howes Leather Co. · Thermo-Stitch, Inc. v. Chemi-Cord Processing Corp. · Robertson v. Chapman
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An accounting is a species of disclosure, predicated upon the legal inability of a plaintiff to determine how much, if any, money is due him from another.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The appellant further contends that the Court abused its discretion in declining to appoint a master to assist the jury. The decision to appoint a master whose function is to aid the judge in the performance of specific judicial duties, is within the discretion of the District Court. La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249, 256 , 77 S.Ct. 309 [313], 1 L.Ed.2d 290 (1957). The fact that “the case involves complex issues of fact and law is no justification for reference to a Master, but rather is an impelling reason for trial before an experienced judge.” Bartlett-Collins Co. v. Surinam Nav. Co., 381 F.2d 546 , 551 (10th Cir.1967); see also In Re Watkins, 271 F.2d 771 (5th Cir.1959). The overall mandate of Rule 53(b) is that reference to a master is to be the exception and not the rule. Actions for fraud are particularly inappropriate for reference to a master “save in extraordinary or exceptional cases.” Irving-Austin Bldg. Corp. v. Cunningham, 100 F.2d 574 (7th Cir.1938). We find no abuse of discretion in the Court’s refusing to appoint a master to assist the jury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Although this does not satisfy the unconditional mandate of the rule, noncompliance does not warrant a new trial unless material prejudice is shown to exist.””
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.