Enquip Inc v. Corp’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
1 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently August 2010 · most notably 154 Ohio App. 3d 338 - Dombelek v. Ohio Bureau of Workers' Compensation (2003), 532 F. Supp. 431 - Slate Printing Co. v. Metro Envelope Co. (1982)
1 district · 4 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 Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Milwaukee Typographical Union No. 23 v. Newspapers, Inc. · State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Worthington · Frank R. Jelleff, Inc. v. Braden · Macklin v. Butler
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The burden is on the moving party to demonstrate the absence of [a genuine issue of material fact], and therefore all reasonable doubts are resolved in favor of the non-moving party. The non-moving party’s defense to a motion for summary judgment is therefore liberally construed in terms of substance and of form.... ... We find that the presence of this documentary evidence was sufficient to alert the court to the presence of an issue of material fact, even though it failed to conform to the formal requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)_ The process of decocting should not eliminate matters before the court which show the existence of an issue of material fact.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is well established in this circuit and elsewhere that such matter from one proceeding is indeed admissible and cognizable as an admission in another, [citations omitted] Furthermore, the trial court properly ruled that while such evidence was admissible it was not a judicial admission, and thus not binding or conclusive. [citations omitted]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“When a statement or plea from another case is sought to be used as an admission in a second suit, courts are therefore careful to allow the opposing party a full opportunity to explain the purported admission to demonstrate that there is an issue of material fact.”
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.