Grove Press, Inc. v. Angleton’s Empirical Analysis
649 F.2d 121 · 1981
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably Marine Midland Bank, N.A. v. Miller (1981), Cutco Industries, Inc. v. Naughton (1986)
7 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
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 World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 93,657 Leasco Data Processing Equipment Corporation, Leasco World Trade Company (u.k.) Ltd. v. Robert Maxwell, Leasco Data Processing Equipment Corporation, Leasco World Trade Company (u.k.) Limited v. Isidore Kerman · Lehigh Valley Industries, Inc. v. Birenbaum · Newburger, Loeb & Co. v. Gross
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A conspiracy is alleged for the purpose of showing that a wrong was committed jointly by the conspirators and that, because of their common purpose and interest, the acts of one may be imputed to the others. Original Ballet Russe, Ltd. v. Ballet Theatre, Inc., 133 F.2d 187 , 189 (2d Cir.1943). The allegation “is merely the string whereby the plaintiff seeks to tie together those who, acting in concert, may be held responsible in damages for any overt act or acts.” Rutkin v. Reinfeld, supra, 229 F.2d [248] at 252 [(2d Cir.), cert. denied, 352 U.S. 844 , 77 S.Ct. 50 , 1 L.Ed.2d 60 (1956)].”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Plaintiffs have made no showing whatever that any of the unnamed CIA employees who allegedly performed the instate tortious acts necessary for jurisdiction under [the New York long-arm statute] were parties to the ‘common agreement.’ So far as the record discloses, these individuals, whoever they were, were simply United States employees acting as agents for the United States government.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“However, before an agency relationship will be held to exist under section 302(a), a showing must be made that the alleged agent acted in New York for the benefit of, with the knowledge and consent of, and under some control by, the nonresident principal.”
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.