Riley v. Brown & Root, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
896 F.2d 474 · 1990
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 30 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably Sherwin Seamons Jane Seamons Brian Seamons v. Douglas Snow Myron Benson Sky View High School (2000), 734 F. Supp. 437 - United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Morrison Grain Co. (1990)
7 federal appellate · 30 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.
Relationships
Relies on Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · Lehman Brothers v. Schein · Clay v. Sun Ins. Office Ltd. · Huddleston v. Dwyer · Osgood v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Smith , the Oklahoma Supreme Court announced that the test for determining whether the electrical equipment in question was an improvement to real property within the meaning of § 109 would be “derived from our [ad valorem] taxing scheme.” The court held that because the electrical transformer retained its character as the personalty of the public utility supplying the electrical power, and ad va-lorem taxes for it were assessed solely against the utility using it, the transformers were not improvements to real property under § 109. Since that test was not part of the law in Oklahoma when the district court granted summary judgment ..., the court did not consider or base its analysis on Oklahoma’s ad valorem taxing scheme or the Smith analysis. % * * * * * Since the record here does not cover the probable tax treatment of the base machine test, as realty or personalty, or the ownership factor as discussed in Smith , the record is not sufficient in its present form to decide whether the machine chest is, under Oklahoma law, an improvement to real property within the meaning of ... § 109.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“'It is the duty of the federal appellate courts, as well as the trial court to ascertain and apply the state law where . . . it controls decision.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Where different ultimate inferences may properly be drawn, the case is not one for a summary judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.