Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 534 F.2d 1036 - Carlyle Michelman, Trustee of Textura, Ltd. In Bankruptcy Proceedings v. Clark-Schwebel Fiber Glass Corporation, and Burlington Industries, Inc.

Carlyle Michelman, Trustee of Textura, Ltd. In Bankruptcy Proceedings v. Clark-Schwebel Fiber Glass Corporation, and Burlington Industries, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

534 F.2d 1036 · 1976

Citation profile

106
cited by 106 later decisions
1
states following
July 2018
most recently cited

55 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 106 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably County of Suffolk v. Long Island Lighting Co. (1990), Batista v. Rodriguez (1983)

55 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions

49019761980199020002010decided

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 First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co. · Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · American Tobacco Co. v. United States · Klor's, Inc. v. Broadway-Hale Stores, Inc. · Continental Ore Company v. Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation

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

  1. “the circumstances (must be) such as to warrant a jury in finding that the conspirators had a unity of purpose or a common design and understanding, or a meeting of minds in an unlawful arrangement.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “If, however, after viewing all the evidence most favorably to plaintiff, we cannot say that the jury could reasonably have returned the verdict in his favor, our duty is to reverse the judgment below. The jury's role as the finder of fact does not entitle it to return a verdict based only on confusion, speculation or prejudice; its verdict must be reasonably based on evidence presented at trial.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “'bound to view the evidence in the light most favorable to [the plaintiff] and to give [him] the benefit of all inferences which the evidence fairly supports, even though contrary inferences might reasonably be drawn.'”
    4 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.