Roland Machinery Company v. Dresser Industries Inc’s Empirical Analysis
749 F.2d 380 · 1984
Citation profile
224 federal appellate · 16 district · 15 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 655 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Toussaint v. McCarthy (1986), United States of America, v. Microsoft Corporation, (2001)
224 federal appellate · 16 district · 15 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. § 14 (§ 3 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Yakus v. United States · Monsanto Company v. Spray-Rite Service Corporation · Hecht Co. v. Bowles · Copperweld Corporation v. Independence Tube Corporation · Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo
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 655 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) that it has no adequate remedy at law; (2) that it will suffer irreparable harm if the preliminary injunction is not issued; (3) that the irreparable harm it will suffer if the preliminary injunction is not granted outweighs the irreparable harm the defendant will suffer if the injunction is granted; (4) that it has a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on the merits; and (5) that the injunction will not harm the public interest.”
24 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The more likely the plaintiff is to win, the less heavily need the balance of harms weigh in his favor; the less likely he is to win, the more need it weigh in his favor.”
21 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The idea underlying these equivalent approaches is that the task for the district judge in deciding whether to grant or deny a motion for preliminary injunction is to minimize errors: the error of denying an injunction to one who will in fact (though no one can know this for sure) go on to win the case on the merits, and the error of granting an injunction to one who will go on to lose. The judge must try to avoid the error that is more costly in the circumstances.”
10 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.