Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 485 F.3d 701 - Coosemans Specialties, Inc. v. Gargiulo

Coosemans Specialties, Inc. v. Gargiulo’s Empirical Analysis

485 F.3d 701 · 2007

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
1
states following
November 2024
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently November 2024 · most notably "R" Best Produce, Inc. v. Disapio (2008), Nickey Gregory Co. v. AgriCap, LLC (2010)

10 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

280200720102020decided

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 Hiller Cranberry Products, Inc. v. Koplovsky · Federal Trade Commission v. Verity International, Ltd. · Cephas v. Nash · Sunkist Growers, Inc. v. Fisher · 814 F. Supp. 346 - Morris Okun, Inc. v. Harry Zimmerman, 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Perishable agricultural commodities received by a commission merchant, dealer, or broker in all transactions, and all inventories of food or other products derived from perishable agricultural commodities, and any receivables or proceeds from the sale of such commodities or products, shall be held by such commission merchant, dealer, or broker in trust for the benefit of all unpaid suppliers or sellers of such commodities or agents involved in the transaction, until full payment of the sums owing in connection with such transactions has been received by such unpaid suppliers, sellers, or agents.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[a]n 9 individual who is in a position to control the assets of the PACA trust and fails to 10 preserve them, may be held personally liable to the trust beneficiaries for breach of 11 fiduciary duty.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “When PACA trust assets are tied up in litigation, or in the form of uncollected accounts receivable, they are insufficient to satisfy the PACA liability because they are not ‘freely available’ for ‘prompt payment’ to trust beneficiaries as the PACA regulations require.”). . AgriFact requests that, if the Injunction is not dissolved, the Court require Plaintiff”
    1 later decision 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.