Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 661 F.2d 776 - Miscellaneous Service Workers, Drivers & Helpers, Teamsters Local # 427 v. Philco-ford Corp.

Miscellaneous Service Workers, Drivers & Helpers, Teamsters Local # 427 v. Philco-ford Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

661 F.2d 776 · 1981

Citation profile

84
cited by 84 later decisions
1
states following
August 2018
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 15 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Haroco, Inc. v. American National Bank & Trust Co. (1984), Schreiber Distributing Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co. (1986)

24 federal appellate · 15 district · 1 state decisions

3401981199020002010decided

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 Cort v. Ash · Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States · Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Assn. · National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. National Assn. of Railroad Passengers · Switchmen's Union of North America v. National Mediation Board

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.

  1. “(1) Is the plaintiff “one of a class for whose especial benefit the statute was created?” (2) Is there any indication of a legislative intent to fashion such a remedy? (3) Is it consistent with the underlying legislative scheme to imply such a remedy? (4) Is the cause of action one traditionally relegated to state law, so that a federal cause of action would be inappropriate?”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[i]n all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity. Malice, intent, knowledge and other condition of mind of a person may be averred generally.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the time, place and specific content of the false representations as well as the identities of the parties to the misrepresentation.”
    4 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.