Environmental Tectonics v. W.S. Kirkpatrick, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
847 F.2d 1052 · 1988
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 23 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2018 · most notably W. S. Kirkpatrick & Co. v. Environmental Tectonics Corp., International (1990), Rose 88-1634 v. Bartle a Reed W 88-1646 (1989)
25 federal appellate · 23 district · 1 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 13 (§ 2 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 78D (§ 4 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934)
Relies on Murphy v. Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor · Continental Ore Company v. Union Carbide and Carbon Corporation · Banco Nacional De Cuba v. Sabbatino · Truong Dinh Hung v. United States · Mann v. Koob
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“factual assessment of whether fulfillment of its responsibilities will be prejudiced by the course of civil litigation is entitled to substantial respect”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the Department's legal conclusions as to the reach of the act of state doctrine are not controlling on the courts,”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. W. S. Kirkpatrick & Co. v. Environmental Tectonics Corp., International · Alexis Holyweek Sarei Paul E. Nerau Thomas Tamausi Phillip Miriori Gregory Kopa Methodius Nesiko Aloysius Moses Rapheal Niniku Gabriel Tareasi Linus Takinu Leo Wuis Michael Akope Benedict Pisi Thomas Kobuko John Tamuasi Norman Mouvo John Osani Ben Korus Namira Kawona Joanne Bosco John Pigolo Magdalene Pigolo, Individually and on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Rio Tinto, Plc Rio Tinted Limited, Alexis Holyweek Sarei Paul E. Nerau Thomas Tamausi Phillip Miriori Gregory Kopa Methodius Nesiko Aloysius Moses Rapheal Niniku Gabriel Tareasi Linus Takinu Leo Wuis Michael Akope Benedict Pisi Thomas Kobuko John Tamuasi Norman Mouvo John Osani Ben Korus Namira Kawona Joanne Bosco John Pigolo Magdalene Pigolo, Individually and on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. Rio Tinto, Plc Rio Tinted Limited“requirement. A combination of specific factors,”
5 later decisions 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.