Rockwell Graphic Systems, Inc. v. Dev Industries, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
91 F.3d 914 · 1996
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably United States v. Kirschenbaum (1998), Additive Controls & Measurement Systems, Inc. v. Flowdata, Inc. (1998)
21 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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 United States v. Swift & Co. · Golden State Bottling Company Inc v. National Labor Relations Board · Kewanee Oil Co. v. Bicron Corp. · Japan Whaling Ass'n v. American Cetacean Society · Regal Knitwear Co. v. National Labor Relations Board
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] party who seeks enforcement of an injunction through the medium of civil contempt is ... entitled to the resolution of genuine issues of material fact that bear upon the allegations by which it seeks to support a finding of contempt,”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, an injunction may bind nonparties who are successors in interest to parties named in the injunction with respect to the subject matter of the injunction. Golden State Bottling Co., Inc. v. NLRB, 414 U.S. 168, 179-80 , 94 S.Ct. 414, 422-23 , 38 L.Ed.2d 388 (1973); Herrlein v. Kanakis, 526 F.2d 252, 253-54 (7th Cir.1975); Brunswick Corp. v. Chrysler Corp., 408 F.2d 335, 339 (7th Cir.1969). Second, parties otherwise without an injunction’s coverage may subject themselves to its proscriptions should they aid or abet the named parties in a concerted attempt to subvert those proscriptions. Regal Knitwear, 324 U.S. at 14, 65 S.Ct. at 481; Chase Nat’l Bank v. City of Norwalk, 291 U.S. 431, 436-37 , 54 S.Ct. 475, 477 [ 78 L.Ed. 894 ] (1934); Alemite Mfg. Corp. v. Staff, 42 F.2d 832, 832-33 (2d Cir.1930).... These rules may also apply in somewhat hybrid fashion in a case where a successor corporation is formed essentially for the purpose of carrying on the enjoined activity. Cf. Panther Pumps & Equip, v. Hydrocraft, Inc., 566 F.2d 8, 24-25 (7th Cir.1977), cert, denied, 435 U.S. 1013, 98 S.Ct. 1887 , 56 L.Ed.2d 395 (1978).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“who receive actual notice of the order by personal service or otherwise.”
2 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.