Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 751 F.2d 322 - Mackey v. Burke

Mackey v. Burke’s Empirical Analysis

751 F.2d 322 · 1984

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
2
states following
June 2012
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently June 2012 · most notably Osgood v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance (1988), K-B Trucking Company v. Riss International Corporation (1985)

15 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions

1801984199020002010decided

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 Nordstrom v. Miller · Modern Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Cinderella Homes, Inc. · Sampson v. Hunt · Hurd v. American Hoist & Derrick Co. · Plains Resources, Inc. v. Gable

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

  1. “' "whether there [was] evidence upon which the jury could properly [have found] a verdict for [Research Products].”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[w]hen alleged fraud relates to promises or statements concerning future events, the gravamen of such a claim is not the breach of the agreement to perform, but the fraudulent representation concerning a present, existing intention to perform, when such intention is in fact nonexistent.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “(1) undereapitalization of a one-man corporation; (2) failure to observe corporate formalities; (8) nonpayment of dividends; (4) siphoning of corporate funds by the dominant stockholder; (5) nonfunctioning of other officers or directors; (6) absence of corporate records; (7) the use of the corporation as a facade for operations of the dominant stockholder or stockholders; and (8) the use of the corporate entity in promoting injustice or fraud.”
    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.