Kalmich v. Bruno’s Empirical Analysis
553 F.2d 549 · 1977
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably McLinn F/v Fjord Johnson F/v Supersonic Churchill v. F/v Fjord F/v Supersonic F/v Supersonic (1984), Gutierrez v. Collins (1979)
37 federal appellate · 3 district · 9 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
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · Griffin v. McCoach
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Irrespective of the deference to which a district court judge's determination of the local law is entitled, we regard the matter of foreign country law as purely a 'question of law,' as it is characterized in Rule 44.1, the resolution of which we are free to arrive at on the basis of our own independent research and analysis.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'State law barring an action because of a statute of limitations is sufficiently”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Article 134(a)’s treatment of war crimes for criminal purposes carried into Section 20 by necessary implication. That this effect was not made express in Article 134(a) and results only by reading that statute with Section 20 does not, as has been seen, make the effect any less specific. So far as appears, war crimes referred to in Article 134(a), and only those crimes, were made perpetually punishable, and causes of action based on these crimes, and only such causes of action, were made perpetually actionable. The limitations provisions of Yugoslavia were sufficiently and specifically part and parcel of the substance of the Yugoslavian statutory right, and the district court erred in refusing to apply them.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Handel v. Artukovic
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.