National Expositions, Inc. v. Crowley Maritime Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
824 F.2d 131 · 1987
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 20 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently March 2014 · most notably Hammersmith v. TIG Insurance (2007), Jardines Bacata Limited v. Diaz-Marquez (1989)
13 federal appellate · 20 district · 4 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
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Kentucky v. Indiana · Mountain States Telephone and Telegraph Company v. Pueblo of Santa Ana · Cool Fuel, Inc. v. Connett · Local 33, International Hod Carriers Building And Common Laborers' Union Of America, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Mason Tenders District Council Of Greater New York
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“does not mean [defendant] had to receive a formal document called “notice” or that the ... court had to say the words “you are on notice” or even that the court had to explicitly tell [defendant], “I am thinking of ordering summary judgment for [plaintiff] sua sponte.” Rather, the question is whether, given the procedural circumstances of the case, the original movant... has had an adequate opportunity to show that there is a genuine issue and that his opponent is not entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[B]eing “on notice” does not mean that [plaintiff] had to receive a formal document called “notice” or that the district court had to say the words “you are on notice” or even that the court had to explicitly tell [plaintiff], “I am thinking of ordering summary judgment for [defendants] sua sponte.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“district court has the legal power to render summary judgment . . . in favor of the party opposing a summary judgment motion even though he has made no formal cross-motion under rule 56”
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.