Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 525 F.2d 662 - Adm Corporation, Appellee-Cross v. Speedmaster Packaging Corporation, Appellant-Cross Dennison Manufacturing Company v. Armando Mota and Frederick C. Osborne, Appellees-Cross

Adm Corporation, Appellee-Cross v. Speedmaster Packaging Corporation, Appellant-Cross Dennison Manufacturing Company v. Armando Mota and Frederick C. Osborne, Appellees-Cross’s Empirical Analysis

525 F.2d 662 · 1975

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
3
states following
April 2012
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently April 2012 · most notably Institutionalized Juveniles S v. Secretary of Public Welfare C 83-1696 83-1722 (1985), Samuel v. University of Pittsburgh (1976)

21 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions

22019751980199020002010decided

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 Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Western Air Lines, Inc. v. California · Chicago Sugar Co. v. American Sugar Refining Co. · Chicago Sugar Co. v. American Sugar Refining Co.

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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(d) Costs. Except when express provision therefor is made either in a statute of the United States or in these rules, costs shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs; ....”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We now hold that when a district court finds that the prevailing party is not entitled to its costs, it should support that determination with an explanation.... Since there may have been grounds on which a denial of costs could permissibly have been based, a remand is required.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “'the denial of costs to the prevailing party ... is in the nature of a penalty for some defection on his part in the course of the litigation.'”
    2 later decisions 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.