Sharp Electronics Corp. v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1581
Relies on 601 F. Supp. 212 - United States v. Gold Mountain Coffee, Ltd. · 68 Cust. Ct. 358 - W. J. Byrnes & Co. v. United States · 601 F. Supp. 1031 - Oak Laminates Division of Oak Materials Group v. United States · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. United States · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co. v. United States
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A rehearing may be proper when there has been some error or irregularity in the trial, a serious evidentiary flaw, a discovery of important new evidence which was not available, even to the diligent party, at the time of the trial, or an occurrence at trial in the nature of an accident or unpredictable surprise or unavoidable mistake which severely impaired a party’s ability to adequately present its case. In short, a rehearing is a method of rectifying a significant flaw in the conduct of the original proceeding.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“[a].... rehearing may be granted ... for any of the reasons for which rehearings have heretofore been granted in suits in equity in the courts of the United States.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.