Apponi v. Sunshine Biscuits, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
809 F.2d 1210 · 1987
Citation profile
62 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 101 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably United States v. Pearce (1990), Armistead v. Vernitron Corp. (1991)
62 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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. § 1291 · 29 U.S.C. § 160 (§ 10 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 185 (§ 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act))
Relies on Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. · DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters · Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck · Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox · Local 174 Teamsters Chaukfeurs Warehousemen Helpers of America v. Lucas Flour Company
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 101 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The elements constituting estoppel, as defined by federal common law, are: (1) conduct or language amounting to a representation of material facts; (2) the party to be estopped must be aware of the true facts; (3) the party to be estopped must intend that the representation be acted on or act such that the party asserting the estoppel has a right to believe it so intended; (4) the party asserting the estoppel must be unaware of the true facts; and (5) the party asserting the estoppel must detrimentally and justifiably rely on the representation.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“court's rulings on evidentiary matters will only be reversed on a clear showing of abuse of discretion.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“distinguish[ed,] rather than overrul[ed,] International Union, UAW v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp., 383 U.S. 696 , 86 S. Ct. 1107, 16 L.Ed.2d 192 (1966), which applied the state limitations period for breach of contract actions to an action by a union alleging a breach of the collective bargaining agreement.”
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.