Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 648 F.2d 1292 - Baum v. Gillman

Baum v. Gillman’s Empirical Analysis

648 F.2d 1292 · 1981

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
1
states following
April 2002
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently April 2002

12 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

190198119902000decided

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 Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co. · Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · Otteson v. United States · Aladdin Oil Co. v. Texaco, Inc.

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

  1. “material under Rule 56. The plaintiffs, as mentioned, did not contest these descriptions of the depositions and references, and submitted their case on that basis. Thus this material may be taken as correct and if when examined under the usual standards it shows no issue of material fact the motion for summary judgment must be granted. Such a judgment would then be”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Come now the Plaintiffs and respectfully request that this honorable Court reconsider its decision it made in granting Summary Judgment against Plaintiffs dated October 19, 1979, and as cause would state as follows: 14”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.