Whelan v. Abell’s Empirical Analysis
48 F.3d 1247 · 1995
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 44 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 120 later decisions — most recently December 2021 · most notably Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc. (1998), Scott v. Hern (2000)
33 federal appellate · 44 district · 15 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Montana v. United States · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. Y Button · Commissioner v. Sunnen · Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc.
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 120 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[0]ur conclusion in [One-O-One \ was plainly not intended to say that an integration clause bars fraud-in-the-inducement claims generally or confines them to claims of fraud in execution.... Such a reading would leave swindlers free to extinguish them victims’ remedies simply by sticking in a bit of boilerplate.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“couldn’t agree on who would be president and CEO, so [they] both were both.” Trial Trans, at 671. . The terms "directed verdict” and "j.n.o.v.,” are no longer used in federál court to refer to such motions. The 1991 amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure merged the traditional terms “directed verdict” and “j.n.o.v.” into a single term: "judgment as a matter of law.” Thus, a motion for directed verdict is now a motion for judgment as a matter of law under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 50(a) and a motion for j.n.o.v. under Fed.R.Civ.P. Rule 50(b) is considered a renewal of the first motion. . There are additional problems present with regard to some of the arguments that defendant raises before the Court. At the close of plaintiff’s case, defendant raised his argument that proximate causation was not proven because of the bankruptcy filing. However, defendant did not raise his argument that NeXus could not have produced audited financial statements without which investors would be unlikely to provide any financing, nor did he raise his assertion that Parker’s testimony was inadmissible. It is established that to preserve a claim for a Rule 50(b) motion, the "precise claim made in the motion for judgment n.o.v. must have been made in the motion for directed verdict.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[h]owever broad the First Amendment right to petition may be, it cannot be stretched to cover petitions based on known falsehoods,”
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.