Mannington Mills, Inc. v. Congoleum Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
595 F.2d 1287 · 1979
Citation profile
58 federal appellate · 14 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 126 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2021 · most notably Hartford Fire Insurance Co v. California Merrett Underwriting Agency Management Limited (1993), Medellin v. Texas (2008)
58 federal appellate · 14 district · 2 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 Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S. A. v. Rogers · Continental Ore Company v. Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation · Precision Instrument Mfg Co v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery 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 126 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. Degree of conflict with foreign law or policy; 2. Nationality of the parties; 3. Relative importance of the alleged violation of conduct here compared to that abroad; 4. Availability of a remedy abroad and the pendency of litigation there; 5. Existence of intent to harm or affect American commerce and its foreseeability; 6. Possible effect upon foreign relations if the court exercises jurisdiction and grants relief; 7. If relief is granted, whether a party will be placed in the position of being forced to perform an act illegal in either country or be under conflicting requirements by both countries; 8. Whether the court can make its order effective; 9. Whether an order for relief would be acceptable in this country if made by the foreign nation under similar circumstances; 10. Whether a treaty with the affected nations has addressed the issue.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a considered policy decision by a government to give effect to its political and public interests ...,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Where two states have jurisdiction to prescribe and enforce rules of law and the rules they may prescribe require inconsistent conduct upon the part of a person, each state is required by international law to consider, in good faith, moderating the exercise of its enforcement jurisdiction, in the light of such factors as (a) vital national interests of each of the states, (b) the extent and the nature of the hardship that inconsistent enforcement actions would impose upon the person, (c) the extent to which the required conduct is to take place in the territory of the other state, (d) the nationality of the person, and (e) the extent to which enforcement by action of either state can reasonably be expected to achieve compliance with the rule prescribed by that state.””
2 later decisions 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.