Sumitomo Bank of California v. Product Promotions, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
717 F.2d 215 · 1983
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently March 2011 · most notably Maritime Overseas Corp. v. Ellis (1998), Dixon v. International Harvester Co. (1985)
23 federal appellate · 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 The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman · Amperex Electronic Corp. v. New York Racing Assn., Inc. · Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Duncan · United States v. Smyth · Midcontinent Broadcasting Co. v. North Central Airlines, Inc.
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]t was incumbent on the trial court to consider all of the evidence before the jury, as it was in fact presented to the jury....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Bradley v. Armstrong Rubber Co. · Daniel Johnstone, Deceased, Leslie v. Johnstone, in Her Capacity as the Personal Representative of the Estate of Daniel Johnstone, and the Estate of Daniel Johnstone, Deceased v. American Oil Co., Keene Corporation, Cross-Appellee. John Hannon v. Waterman Steamship Corporation“The contents of voluminous writings, recordings, or photographs which cannot conveniently be examined in court may be presented in the form of a chart, summary, or calculation. The originals, or duplicates, shall be made available for examination or copying, or both, by other parties at reasonable time and place. The court may order that they be produced in court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The trial judge erred in retroactively striking the summary exhibits and then gauging the jury's performance on the fictive basis that the summary evidence was not before it. Although acceptable in the context of a motion for a new trial ... this methodology is not appropriate in connection with a motion for a judgment n.o.v.”
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.