Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 879 F.2d 272 - Ash v. Wallenmeyer

Ash v. Wallenmeyer’s Empirical Analysis

879 F.2d 272 · 1989

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
2
states following
July 2013
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently July 2013

10 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

1101989199020002010decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)

Relies on United States v. Procter & Gamble Co. · Disher v. Information Resources, Inc. · Erff v. MarkHon Industries, Inc. · Western Transportation Co. v. Wilson & Co. · LaBuhn v. Bulkmatic Transport Co.

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

  1. “[t]he federal rules do not contemplate that parties will amend their pleadings to reflect new information obtained in the discovery process. The information is to be reflected in the framing of issues in the pretrial order, which supersedes the complaint.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “damages on each shipment equal to the difference between the tariffed rates and the actual rates paid, subject to the defendants' being able to persuade the trier of fact that, if Wallenmeyer had charged the tariffed rate, Georgia-Pacific would have bought less than it did”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “For the further guidance of the district court we point out that Ash has abandoned his claim for diversion damages, and therefore the further proceedings will be limited to the defendants' liability for, and the amount of, the underbilling damages.”
    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.