McLain v. Meier’s Empirical Analysis
612 F.2d 349 · 1979
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 11 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently January 2010 · most notably Pinney Dock & Transport Co. v. Penn Central Corp. (1988), Vette Company v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company (1980)
22 federal appellate · 11 district · 3 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 2 U.S.C. § 431 (§ 301 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Haines v. Kerner · Robert Johnson Grain Co. v. Chemical Interchange Co. · Windsor v. Bethesda General Hospital · Welsch v. Likins · Bellflower v. Pennise
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a district court in passing on a Rule 56 motion performs what amounts to what may be called a negative discretionary function. The court has no discretion to grant a motion for summary judgment, but even if the court is convinced that the moving party is entitled to such a judgment the exercise of sound judicial discretion may dictate that the motion should be denied, and the case fully developed. [Emphasis in original.]”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. In such a situation, there can be “no genuine issue as to any material fact,” since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Summary judgment is a harsh remedy and is to be granted sparingly”
1 later decision 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.