Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 827 F.2d 346 - Krause v. Perryman

Krause v. Perryman’s Empirical Analysis

827 F.2d 346 · 1987

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
September 2011
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently September 2011 · most notably Lane v. Peterson (1990), United States v. Cortez (1991)

23 federal appellate · 1 district ·

2501987199020002010decided

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 11 U.S.C. § 362 · 15 U.S.C. § 77Q (§ 17 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)

Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Marino v. United States · Ratchford v. Gay Lib · Japan Whaling Ass'n v. American Cetacean Society

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

  1. “A motion for summary judgment may be granted only if an examination of all the evidence in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party reveals no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “sold all his stock and resigned as president of [the enterprise]”
    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.