← 479 F.2d 84 - James G. Cockrum v. Charles E. Whitney and Philip C. Loucks

James G. Cockrum v. Charles E. Whitney and Philip C. Loucks’s Empirical Analysis

479 F.2d 84 · 1973

Citation profile

cited by 55 later decisions

states following

April 2001

most recently cited

41 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently April 2001 · most notably William Inglis & Sons Baking Co. v. ITT Continental Baking Co. (1981), California Computer Products, Inc. v. International Business Machines Corp. (1979)

41 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Continental Ore Company v. Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation · Tennant v. Peoria & Pekin Union Railway Co. · Brady v. Southern Railway Co. · District of Columbia v. Carter · Western Air Lines, Inc. v. California

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

“[W]e are “bound to view the evidence in the light most favorable to [the pre vailing party] and to give [that party] the benefit of all inferences which the evidence fairly supports, even though contrary inferences might reasonably be drawn.” Continental Ore Co. v. Union Carbide & Carbon Corp., 370 U.S. 690, 696 , 82 S.Ct. 1404, 1409 , 8 L.Ed.2d 777 (1962).... It is the jury, not the judge, which “weighs the contradictory evidence and inferences, judges the credibility of witnesses, receives expert instructions, and draws the ultimate conclusion as to the facts.... Courts are not free to reweigh the evidence and set aside the jury verdict merely because the jury could have drawn different inferences or conclusions because judges feel that other results are more reasonable.” Tennant v. Peoria & P. U. Ry., 321 U.S. 29, 35 , 64 S.Ct. 409, 412 , 88 L.Ed. 520 (1944).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 164 F. Supp. 2d 1130 - Honeywell, Inc. v. San Francisco Housing Authority · 59 F. Supp. 2d 1005 - Marques v. Bank of America
“bound to view the evidence in the light most favorable to [the non-moving party] and to give [him] the benefit of all inferences which the evidence fairly supports, even though contrary inferences might reasonably be drawn.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Bulgo v. Munoz
“the evidence is such that without weighing the credibility of the witnesses there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the verdict . . . .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Crocker-Citizens National Bank v. Control Metals Corp.

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.