Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 520 F.2d 639 - Tma Fund, Inc., a Michigan Corporation v. James Biever and Pamela Biever

Tma Fund, Inc., a Michigan Corporation v. James Biever and Pamela Biever’s Empirical Analysis

520 F.2d 639 · 1975

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
2
states following
April 2010
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently April 2010

11 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

10019751980199020002010decided

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 Ex parte McCardle · Cold Metal Process Company v. United Engineering & Foundry Company · Oak Construction Co. v. Huron Cement Co. · District 65, Distributive, Processing & Office Workers Union of New York & New Jersey v. McKague · Williams v. Bernhardt Bros. Tugboat Service, 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment. In the absence of such determination and direction, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “our jurisdiction attaches on the date when the notice of appeal is filed in the district court from an appealable order. See, Fed.R.App.P. 3(a). If the jurisdictional prerequisites are not satisfied as of that date we have no recourse but to dismiss the appeal.”
    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.