Nyhus v. Travel Management Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
466 F.2d 440 · 1972
Citation profile
78 federal appellate · 21 district · 32 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 166 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Founding Church of Scientology of Washington, D. C., Inc. v. National Security Agency (1979), Henry S. Bloomgarden v. Charles B. Coyer (1973)
78 federal appellate · 21 district · 32 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 77A (§ 1 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 26 U.S.C. § 404 · 26 U.S.C. § 451
Relies on Gregory v. Helvering · West v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co. · Sansone v. United States · Knetsch v. United States · Stern v. Board of Levee Commissioners
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 166 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“is limited to ascertaining whether any factual issue pertinent to the controversy exists; it does not extend to resolution of any such issue.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The record does not disclose where the employment contract was made or where it was to be performed. The law of the District of Columbia — the forum — thus governs the determination as to whether the action was barred by the statute of limitations, as well as all other determinations respecting application of the statute.” 466 F.2d at 443 (emphasis added).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he record must show the movant’s right to it “with such clarity as to leave no room for controversy,” and must demonstrate that his opponent “would not be entitled to [prevail] under any discernible circumstances.””
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.