Loveridge v. Dreagoux’s Empirical Analysis
678 F.2d 870 · 1982
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 43 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably McLinn F/v Fjord Johnson F/v Supersonic Churchill v. F/v Fjord F/v Supersonic F/v Supersonic (1984), United States v. Gilbert (1999)
16 federal appellate · 9 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 United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder · National Labor Relations Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. · Doyle v. Ohio · Weiss v. United States
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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[d]eference is to be accorded the views of a resident federal district judge with respect to the interpretation and application of the law of his state ... [and] [a]ppellate review is ... governed by the 'clearly erroneous' standard.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As long as the instrumentality used is itself an integral part of an interstate system, Congress may regulate intrastate activities involving the use of the instrumentality under the federal securities laws.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[P]roof of intrastate telephonic messages in connection with the employment of deceptive devices or contrivances is sufficient to confer jurisdiction in a § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 action.”
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.