Milan v. Centennial Communications Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
2007
Citation profile
5 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 19 U.S.C. § 2101 (Customs and Trade Act of 1990) · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 29 U.S.C. § 1201 (§ 3001 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 2101 (§ 2 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 2102 (§ 3 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 2104 (§ 5 of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Radio & Television Broadcast Technicians Local Union 1264 v. Broadcast Service of Mobile, Inc. · Calero-Cerezo v. United States Department of Justice
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the corporation is being used to sanction fraud, provide injustice, evade obligations, defeat public policy, justify inequity, protect fraud or defend crime.”
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.