Williams v. Gerstenfeld’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
1 district · 51 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Washington Medical Center, Inc. v. Holle (1990), Beckman v. Farmer (1990)
1 district · 51 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 11 U.S.C. § 105 · 11 U.S.C. § 1307 · 11 U.S.C. § 362
Relies on Stoll v. Gottlieb · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Miller v. Avirom · Dewey v. Clark · Nader v. De Toledano
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Matters not properly presented to a trial court will not be resolved on appeal. A court deviates from this principle only in exceptional situations and when necessary to prevent a clear miscarriage of justice apparent from the record.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Defendant Griffiths Garcia Corporation has moved for summary judgment and has supported its Motion with a Statement of Material Facts which are Not in Dispute and various documents, including transcripts of deposition testimony and affidavits. Plaintiffs Statement of Material Facts Remaining in Dispute, which framed no issues relevant to defendant’s motion, made no reference to a pleading, deposition, answers to interrogatories or admissions on file, and did not controvert the facts as stated by the defendant, was inadequate to defeat defendant’s Motion.... Upon consideration of the foregoing, and it appearing to the Court that there is no material issue of fact in dispute, and defendant Griffiths Garcia Corporation is entitled to judgment as a matter of law pursuant to SCR Civ.R. 56 ... [summary judgment is granted].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“A person, whether acting for the interests of itself, its members, or the general public, may bring an action under this chapter in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia seeking relief from the use by any person of a trade practice in violation of a law of the District of Columbia and may recover or obtain the following remedies: (A) treble damages, or $1,500 per violation, whichever is greater, payable to the consumer; (B) reasonable attorney’s fees; (C) punitive damages; (D) an injunction against the use of the unlawful trade practice; (E) in representative actions, additional relief as may be necessary to restore to the consumer money or property, real or personal, which may have been acquired by means of the unlawful trade practice; or (F) any other relief which the court deems proper.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Parker v. Martin
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.