Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 812 F.2d 357 - Colan v. Cutler-Hammer, Inc.

Colan v. Cutler-Hammer, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

812 F.2d 357 · 1987

Citation profile

73
cited by 73 later decisions
1
states following
June 2015
most recently cited

37 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 73 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably Lohorn v. Michal (1990), Wolf v. City of Fitchburg (1989)

37 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

3501987199020002010decided

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. § 78P (§ 16 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)

Relies on First Nat. Bank of Ariz. v. Cities Service Co. · Coastal Steel Corp. v. Wheelabrator-Frye, Inc. · Waller v. Georgia · Blau v. Lehman · Kern County Land Company v. Occidental Petroleum Corporation

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

  1. “whether the record shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to the judgment as a matter of law.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “well grounded in fact [or] warranted by existing law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law, [or] ... is ... interposed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The test under Rule 11 is objective: litigation must be grounded in an objectively reasonable view of the facts and the law, and, if it is not, the lawyer or party proceeding recklessly must foot the bill.”
    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.