Union Carbide Corporation v. American Can Company’s Empirical Analysis
724 F.2d 1567 · 1984
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 27 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 200 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Barmag Barmer Maschinenfabrik AG v. Murata Machinery, Ltd. (1984), Avia Group International, Inc. v. L.A. Gear California, Inc. (1988)
19 federal appellate · 27 district ·
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. § 1295 · 35 U.S.C. § 103
Relies on Graham v. John Deere Company of Kansas City Calmar Inc · Diamond v. Diehr · Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp. · Chore-Time Equipment, Inc. v. Cumberland Corp.
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 200 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial. In such a situation, there can be “no genuine issue as to any material fact,” since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial. The moving party is “entitled to a judgment as a matter of law” because the nonmoving party has failed to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her case with respect to which she has the burden of proof____”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“easily understandable without the need for expert explanatory testimony.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[m]any, if not most, suits for patent infringement give rise to numerous and complex fact issues, rendering those suits inappropriate for summary disposition. Where no issue of material fact is present, however, courts should not hesitate to avoid an unnecessary trial by proceeding under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56 without regard to the particular type of suit involved.”
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.