Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 561 F.2d 494 - John W. Wilson v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New York Corporation and Volkswagenwerk, A. G., a Foreign Corporation, Wolfsburg, Western Germany

John W. Wilson v. Volkswagen of America, Inc., a New York Corporation and Volkswagenwerk, A. G., a Foreign Corporation, Wolfsburg, Western Germany’s Empirical Analysis

561 F.2d 494 · 1977

Citation profile

250
cited by 250 later decisions
21
states following
June 2023
most recently cited

91 federal appellate · 27 district · 38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 250 later decisions — most recently June 2023 · most notably Westberry v. Gislaved Gummi AB (1999), Shepherd v. American Broadcasting Companies (1995)

91 federal appellate · 27 district · 38 state decisions — followed in 21 states

850197719801990200020102020decided

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 International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States · National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc. · Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S. A. v. Rogers · Hughes Tool Co. v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · Pell v. Procunier

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

  1. “'regular response to a repeated specific situation.'”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““to consider the full record” as well as the reasons assigned by the Trial Court for its judgment, and to reverse the judgment below, if after such review, the appellate court “ ‘has a definite and firm conviction that the court below committed a clear error of judgment in the conclusion it reached upon a weighing of the relevant factors.’ ””
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) the needs of the discovery party; (2) the nature of the non-compliance; (3) “how the absence of such evidence [not produced] would impair [the other party’s] ability to establish their case”; (4) whether the non-compliance party’s conduct would deprive the other party of a fair trial.”
    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.