Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 696 F.2d 524 - Donovan v. Fall River Foundry Co.

Donovan v. Fall River Foundry Co.’s Empirical Analysis

696 F.2d 524 · 1982

Citation profile

37
cited by 37 later decisions
2
states following
October 2015
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 37 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably State of Illinois, Department of Public Aid v. Schweiker (1983), Olympia Equipment Leasing Company v. Western Union Telegraph Company (1986)

12 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

1701982199020002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1961 · 29 U.S.C. § 657 (§ 8 of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970)

Relies on United States v. Universal C. I. T. Credit Corp. · Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson · International Longshoremen's Ass'n, Local 1291 v. Philadelphia Marine Trade Ass'n · Weinberger v. Rossi · Osh Oshd Establishment Inspection of Gilbert Bennett Manufacturing Company Routh Marshall v. Chromalloy American Corporation

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 37 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “an order to do, rather than an order to pay,”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he reference in Rule 62(d) to supersedeas bond suggests that had the framers thought about the point they would have limited the right to an automatic stay to cases where the judgment being appealed from was a `money judgment.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “an interlocutory or final judgment in an action for an injunction or in a receivership action, or a judgment or order directing an accounting in an action for infringement of letters patent.”
    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.