McMahon v. Prentice-Hall, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently January 2018
2 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · United States v. Diebold, Inc. · Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co. · Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood · Ross v. Bernhard
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is . . . clear that merely because portions of plaintiff's prayer seek an `accounting' the right to trial by jury is not lost. Only when the accounts involved are of such a complicated nature that only a court of equity can unravel them is the right lost; such circumstances will only rarely arise.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Matter of Kakolewski“The test is whether the resemblance would be recognized by ordinary observation, not fine analysis or argument. Hypercritical [dissection] of sentences and incidents should not be resorted to in an attempt to show substantial similarity.”
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.