Joe Regueira, Inc. v. American Distilling Co.’s Empirical Analysis
642 F.2d 826 · 1981
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 3 district ·
Relationships
Relies on First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co. · Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · Standard Oil Company of New Jersey v. United States · Perma Life Mufflers, Inc. v. International Parts Corp. · United States v. Parke, Davis & 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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In an antitrust case .... summary judgment is still appropriate where the plaintiff does not produce 'significant probative evidence demonstrating that a genuine issue of (material) fact exists.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]e must decide whether under Florida law the alleged contract would be construed as an “indefinite contract,” which is terminable at will by either party upon reasonable notice. See Gulf Cities Gas Corp. v. Tangelo Park Service Co., 253 So.2d 744 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1971); Florida-Georgia Chemical Co. v. National Laboratories, 153 So.2d 752 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1963). Both Gulf Cities and Florida-Georgia Chemical define “indefinite contracts” as those wholly lacking in any reference to the duration of the contract. Such contracts are contrasted with “perpetual contracts,” which, we infer, may continue perpetually under an agreed upon duration term. The alleged oral agreement in the instant case, which continues until Regueira’s promotion or share of American sales in Florida declines, is properly characterized as a perpetual contract and is thus not terminable at will with reasonable notice. [Footnotes omitted.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“No action shall be brought ... upon any agreement that is not to be performed within the space of one year from the making thereof ... unless the agreement or promise upon which such action shall be brought, or some note or memorandum thereof shall be in writing and signed by the party to be charged therewith or by some other person by him thereunto lawfully authorized.”
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.