Eberhardt v. Waters’s Empirical Analysis
901 F.2d 1578 · 1990
Citation profile
14 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 115 later decisions — most recently February 2020 · most notably McCann v. Tillman (2008), Scala v. City of Winter Park (1997)
14 federal appellate ·
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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Securities & Exchange Commission v. W. J. Howey Co. · Securities & Exchange Commission v. Koscot Interplanetary, Inc. · Jeter v. Credit Bureau, Inc.
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 115 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] common enterprise exists where the 'fortunes of the investor are interwoven with and dependent upon the efforts and success of those seeking the investment of third parties.' " SEC v. Unique , 196 F.3d at 1199 (citing Villeneuve v. Advanced Bus. Concepts Corp. , 698 F.2d 1121 , 1124 (11th Cir. 1990) ). "The thrust of the common enterprise element test is that the investors have no desire to perform the chores necessary for a return, and are attracted to the investment solely by the prospects of a return.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A party opposing summary judgment may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials in its pleadings. Rather, its responses, either by affidavits or other wise as provided by the rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial. A mere “scintilla” of evidence supporting the opposing party’s position will not suffice; there must be enough of a showing that the jury could reasonably find for that party.”
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.