Mid-South Grizzlies v. National Football League’s Empirical Analysis
720 F.2d 772 · 1983
Citation profile
44 federal appellate · 15 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 107 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2015 · most notably Big Apple BMW, Inc. v. BMW of North America, Inc. (1992), Jf Feeser Inc v. Serv-a-Portion Inc (1990)
44 federal appellate · 15 district · 8 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
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1291 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 1294 (Sherman Antitrust Act) · 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 2 (§ 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 26 U.S.C. § 501
Relies on S.S. Zoe Colocotroni v. Puerto Rico · Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Silver v. New York Stock Exchange · Ohio State Board of Education v. Reed · County of Los Angeles v. Chavez-Salido
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 107 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is true that Rule 56(f) also authorizes the court in appropriate cases to refuse to enter summary judgment where the party opposing the motion shows a legitimate basis for his inability to present by affidavit the facts essential to justify his opposition; but to take advantage of this provision he must state by affidavit the reasons for his inability to do so and these reasons must be genuine and convincing to the court rather than merely colorable. It is not enough to rest upon the uncertainty which broods over all human affairs or to pose philosophic doubts regarding the conclusiveness of evidentiary facts. In the world of speculation such doubts have an honored place, but in the daily affairs of mankind and the intensely practical business of litigation they are put aside as conjectural.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'where the facts are in possession of the moving party a continuance of a motion for summary judgment for purposes of discovery should be granted almost as a matter of course.'”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“agree that filing an affidavit [thereunder] is necessary for the preservation of a ... contention that summary judgment should be delayed pending further discovery.”
3 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.