Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 758 F.2d 1237 - Hudson v. Nabisco Brands, Inc.

Hudson v. Nabisco Brands, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

758 F.2d 1237 · 1985

Citation profile

88
cited by 88 later decisions
2
states following
April 2014
most recently cited

46 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently April 2014 · most notably McNabola v. Chicago Transit Authority (1993), Delgado v. Bowen (1986)

46 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

4501985199020002010decided

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. § 1920 · 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 28 U.S.C. § 753 · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))

Relies on DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters · Copperweld Corporation v. Independence Tube Corporation · Farmer v. Arabian American Oil Co. · United States v. Bailey · United States v. Walters

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

  1. “necessarily obtained for use in the case,”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Sears, Roebuck & Co. · 634 F. Supp. 615 - Lock v. Jenkins
  2. “costs other than attorney's fees shall be allowed as of course to the prevailing party unless the court otherwise directs.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Congregation of the Passion, Holy Cross Province v. Touche, Ross & Co. · Allen & O'Hara, Inc. v. Barrett Wrecking, Inc.
  3. “[T]he generally accepted view, and the one adopted by this circuit, is that introduction of a deposition at trial is not a prerequisite for finding that it was necessary to take the deposition. 758 F.2d at 1243”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
    e.g. Roberts v. Homelite Division of Textron, Inc. · Sampson v. Orkin Exterminating Co.

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.