Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 624 F.2d 709 - Croy v. Campbell

Croy v. Campbell’s Empirical Analysis

624 F.2d 709 · 1980

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
March 2003
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2003 · most notably Pinter v. Dahl (1988), Huddleston v. Herman & MacLean (1981)

18 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

480198019902000decided

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. United States Gypsum Co. · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green · Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. · Dupuy v. Dupuy

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

  1. “(Broad ) also noted, however, that proof of recklessness would require”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed. Where the evidence would support a conclusion either way, a choice by the trial judge between two permissible views of the weight of the evidence is not clearly erroneous, and the fact that the trial judge totally rejected an opposed view impeaches neither his impartiality nor the propriety of his conclusions.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(i) to those in privity with the purchaser and (ii) to those whose participation in the buy-sell transaction is a substantial factor in causing the transaction to take place. Mere participation in the events leading up to the transaction is not enough.”
    2 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.