Weitzman v. Stein’s Empirical Analysis
897 F.2d 653 · 1990
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably United States v. Microsoft Corp. (1998), In Re Best Products Co., Inc. (1994)
25 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651
Relies on United Transportation Union v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority · Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman · Jackson Dairy, Inc. v. H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. · Mayo v. Lakeland Highlands Canning Co. · United States v. Moya-Gomez
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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“7-Pt. 2 Moore's Federal Practice p 65.04, at 65-81 (2d ed.1989), and the court must allow that party sufficient time to marshal his evidence and present his arguments against the issuance of the injunction, see 11 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2949, at 468 (1973). 17 Weitzman v. Stein, 897 F.2d 653, 657 (2d Cir.1990); see also Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Brotherhood of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers, Local No. 70, 415 U.S. 423 , 434 n. 7, 94 S.Ct. 1113 , 1121 n. 7, 39 L.Ed.2d 435 (1974) (”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Every order granting an injunction ... shall set forth the reasons for its issuance....”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Horphag Research Ltd., M.W. International, Inc., Societe Civile D'InvestIgatIons Pharmacologiques D'aquitaine, and Societe Civile Pour L'Expansion De La Rechereche en Phytochimie Appliquee v. Consac Industries, Inc., D/B/A Country Life, Horphag Research and M.W. International, Inc., Movants-Appellees v. International Nutrition Company and Egbert Schwitters, Joined Parties-Appellants · Horphag Research Ltd Mw v. Consac Industries Inc Horphag Research Mw“In its August 1988 Jurisdiction Order, the district court found only that Weitz-man had made a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction. The court stated that when it heard the merits of § 5225 motion it would also “conduct a full evi-dentiary hearing on the subject of jurisdiction.” There was no such hearing prior to the entry of the injunction. The prima facie showing was sufficient to permit the § 5225 issues to be litigated, but it was not sufficient to permit the entry of a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, on remand, the district court may not enter an injunctive order against Beverly without determining that Weitzman has established at least a reasonable probability of ultimate success on the question of the court’s in personam jurisdiction over Beverly.”
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.