Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 735 F.2d 714 - The Grand Union Company v. Cord Meyer Development Corporation and King Kullen Grocery Company, Inc.

The Grand Union Company v. Cord Meyer Development Corporation and King Kullen Grocery Company, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

735 F.2d 714 · 1984

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
July 2012
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently July 2012 · most notably Garita Hotel Limited Partnership Etc v. Ponce Federal Bank Fsb (1992), Gilbert v. City of Cambridge (1991)

10 federal appellate · 2 district ·

2801984199020002010decided

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 Conley v. Gibson · Scheuer v. Rhodes · McLain v. Real Estate Board of New Orleans, Inc. · Heyman v. Commerce & Industry Insurance · Carter v. Stanton

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

  1. “"If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The judgment sought shall be rendered forthwith if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatives, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Rule 56(c).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “no indication that the district court excluded from consideration the matters outside the pleadings presented by way of the affidavits.”
    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.