Scandia Down Corporation v. Euroquilt Inc’s Empirical Analysis
772 F.2d 1423 · 1985
Citation profile
104 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 225 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably Mars Steel Corp. v. Continental Bank N.A. (1989), Mucha v. King (1986)
104 federal appellate · 5 district · 6 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 28 U.S.C. § 1654
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory · Upjohn Company v. United States · Pullman-Standard v. Swint · National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc.
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 225 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he district court's authority to decide factual issues is just that--authority * * * * The district judge is manager of the entire swirl of facts, and the clearly erroneous rule is based in substantial measure on a belief that because appellate courts never are in a better position than the district court, and often are in a worse one, * * * '[d]uplication of the trial judge's efforts in the court of appeals would very likely contribute only negligibly to the accuracy of fact determination at a huge cost in diversion of judicial resources.'”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“corporations must appear by counsel or not at all”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“if taken one at a time. But that is not the right way to take them. The eye sees the combination of words, typeface, and goose as a unit.... The district court therefore must consider each mark as a unit. 44 Id. at 1430. See also Computer Care v. Serv. Sys. Enters., Inc., 982 F.2d 1063 , 1069 (7th Cir.1992) (”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.