In re Cargill, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
66 F.3d 1256 · 1995
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 10 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably Waste Management Holdings, Inc. v. Mowbray (2000), Pike v. Guarino (2007)
32 federal appellate · 10 district · 5 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 13 (§ 2 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 331 · 28 U.S.C. § 455
Relies on Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal. · Pullman-Standard v. Swint · Allied Chemical Corporation v. Daiflon Inc · Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. · Precision Instrument Mfg Co v. Automotive Maintenance Machinery 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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“must show both that there is a clear entitlement to the relief requested, and that irreparable harm will likely occur if the writ is withheld.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. “(b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: “(1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding; “(2) Where in private practice he served as lawyer in the matter in controversy, or a lawyer with whom he previously practiced law served during such association as a lawyer concerning the matter, or the judge or such lawyer has been a material witness concerning it; “(3) Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy; “(4) He knows that he, individually or as a fiduciary, or his spouse or minor child residing in his household, has a financial interest in the subject matter in controversy or in a party to the proceeding, or any other interest that could be substantially affected by the outcome of the proceeding; “(5) He or his spouse, or a person within the third degree of relationship to either of them, or the spouse of such a person: “(i) Is a party to the proceeding, or an officer, director, or trustee of a party; “(ii) Is acting as a lawyer in the proceeding; “(iii) Is known by the judge to have an interest that could be ”
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.