Felix v. Young’s Empirical Analysis
536 F.2d 1126 · 1976
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 131 later decisions — most recently March 2012 · most notably Canderm Pharmacal, Ltd. v. Elder Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (1988), Smith v. Hudson (1979)
34 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Grayned v. City of Rockford · United States v. O'Brien · Miller v. California · Wisconsin v. Constantineau
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 131 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(e) Form of Affidavits; Further Testimony; Defense Required. Supporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the af-fiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein. Sworn or certified copies of all papers or parts thereof referred to in an affidavit shall be attached thereto or served therewith. The court may permit affidavits to be supplemented or opposed by depositions, answers to interrogatories, or further affidavits. When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of his pleadings, but his response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. If he does not so respond, summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered against him. [emphasis supplied]”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence““Under Rule 56(c), the moving party always has the initial burden of showing the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and that he is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. (citation omitted) When the initial burden has been supported by additional materials, the non-moving party must then come forward with specific facts which demonstrate to the Court that there is a genuine issue for trial, (citation omitted) However, the fact that the movant’s affidavits are uncontroverted does not necessarily mean that summary judgment should be granted — the ultimate burden remains on the moving party.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.