Sports Form, Inc. v. United Press International Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
686 F.2d 750 · 1982
Citation profile
179 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 350 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc. (2001), Sierra On-Line, Inc. v. Phoenix Software, Inc. (1984)
179 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 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 States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe · Northern Pacific Railway Co. v. United States · Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum Commission v. National Football League
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 350 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he party requesting the preliminary injunction[] [must] show either a likelihood of success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury, or that serious questions going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor. This test is viewed as a continuum.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because of the limited scope of our review of the law applied by the district court and because the fully developed factual record may be materially different from that initially before the district court, our disposition of appeals from most preliminary injunctions may provide little guidance as to the appropriate disposition on the merits.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“) (citation omitted) The parties to this appeal dispute whether the district court relied on an erroneous legal standard, not whether the district court wrongly applied the right legal standard to the facts of the case. Where the issue is whether the district court got the law right in the first place, we do not defer review and thereby allow lawsuits to proceed on potentially erroneous legal premises. 10 Proposition 209 contains a savings clause providing that”
9 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.