Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 642 F.2d 1285 - United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.’s Empirical Analysis

642 F.2d 1285 · 1980

Citation profile

354
cited by 354 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
20
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

90 federal appellate · 69 district · 38 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 354 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably Diamond v. Charles (1986), In re Sealed Case (1982)

90 federal appellate · 69 district · 38 state decisions — followed in 20 states

114019801990200020102020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1291

Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Warth v. Seldin · Hickman v. Taylor · United States v. Nixon · Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay

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

  1. “to promote the adversary system by safeguarding the fruits of an attorney's trial preparations from the discovery attempts of the opponent.”
    18 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “transferor and transferee [must] anticipate litigation against a common adversary on the same issue or issues”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “timeliness is to be judged in consideration of all the circumstances, especially weighing the factors of time elapsed since the inception of the suit, the purpose for which intervention is sought, the need for intervention as a means of preserving the applicant’s rights, and the probability of prejudice to those already parties in the case.”
    7 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.