Murray v. Kunzig’s Empirical Analysis

462 F.2d 871 · 1972

Citation profile

cited by 26 later decisions

cited 1 times by the Supreme Court

states following

November 1989

most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions

Appellate journey

Relationships

Applies 10 U.S.C. § 1552 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 377 · 5 U.S.C. § 5596

Relies on Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission · Aircraft & Diesel Equipment Corp. v. Hirsch · Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Association v. Federal Power Commission, Blue Ridge Gas Company, Intervenor. Petition for Review of Order of the Federal Power Commission, No. 14583. Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Association v. Federal Power Commission, Appeal From United States District Court for the District of Columbia · Federal Trade Commission v. Dean Foods Co. · Arrow Transportation Company v. Southern Railway Company

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

““No court can make time stand still. The circumstances surrounding a controversy may change irrevocably during the pendency of an appeal, despite anything a court can do. But within these limits it is reasonable that an appellate court should be able to prevent irreparable injury to the parties or to the public resulting from the premature enforcement of a determination which may later be found to have been wrong. * * * ””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Bannercraft Clothing Co. v. Renegotiation Board · Banercraft Clothing Company, Inc. v. The Renegotiation Board, Astro Communication Laboratory, a Division of Aiken Industries, Inc. v. The Renegotiation Board, David B. Lilly Co., Inc. v. The Renegotiation Board
“The far better procedure when motions are more than routine is to take oral testimony as to disputed matters of fact. This is because of the better opportunity that oral testimony gives the trier of fact to determine credibility. Affidavits deprive him of the opportunity to judge demeanor, and the opportunity to observe “the chastening process of cross-examination.” “Without these twin tools, normal in the trial of factual issues, the factual conclusion [is] certain to take on an unaccustomed quality of artificiality.” [footnotes omitted]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 486 F. Supp. 414 - Playboy Enterprises, Inc. v. Chuckleberry Publishing, Inc.
“was, as it had to be, the product of a selection unbenefited by built-in aids to a discriminating choice. The opportunity to judge credibility was nonexistent as to the absent affiants; the opportunity to probe by cross-examination was completely lacking. With out these twin tools, normal in the trial of factual issues, the factual conclusion was certain to take on an unaccustomed quality of artificiality.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Prakash v. American University

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.