Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 614 F.2d 832 - Nifty Foods Corporation v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company Inc

Nifty Foods Corporation v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company Inc’s Empirical Analysis

614 F.2d 832 · 1980

Citation profile

147
cited by 147 later decisions
5
states following
October 2011
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 14 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 147 later decisions — most recently October 2011 · most notably Rebel Oil Co. v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (1995), Twin Laboratories, Inc. v. Weider Health & Fitness (1990)

31 federal appellate · 14 district · 7 state decisions

9501980199020002010decided

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 United States v. Diebold, Inc. · First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co. · United States v. Grinnell Corp. · Brown Shoe Co. v. United States · United States v. E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & 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 147 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. ““Every agreement, promise or undertaking is void, unless it or some note or memorandum thereof be in writing, and subscribed by the party to be charged therewith, or by his lawful agent, if such agreement, promise or undertaking: 1. By its terms is not to be performed within one year from the making thereof or the performance of which is not to be completed before the end of a lifetime;”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[s]ummary judgment ... can be sustained ... if but only if the reviewing court is satisfied that a properly instructed jury, giving full weight to plaintiff’s evidence, drawing every reasonable inference in its favor, and subjecting defendants’ evidence to a critical eye, could not rationally have found that plaintiff was entitled to any relief.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “then-applicable New York Statute of Frauds”
    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.