Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 922 F.2d 168 - Anchorage Associates v. Virgin Islands Board of Tax Review

Anchorage Associates v. Virgin Islands Board of Tax Review’s Empirical Analysis

922 F.2d 168 · 1990

Citation profile

178
cited by 178 later decisions
3
states following
June 2021
most recently cited

34 federal appellate · 41 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 178 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably Vermont Teddy Bear Co. v. 1-800 BEARGRAM Co. (2004), United States v. Prudential Insurance Company (1991)

34 federal appellate · 41 district · 4 state decisions

6001990200020102020decided

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. § 1447 · 28 U.S.C. § 2071 (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Amendments)

Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Carnegie v. United States · Bates v. State Bar · California v. ARC America Corp. · Foy v. Northeast Suburban Life

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

  1. “When the moving party has the burden of proof at trial, that party must show affirmatively the absence of a genuine issue of material fact: it ... must show that, on all the essential elements of its case on which it bears the burden of proof at trial, no reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “does not contemplate that the court will exercise discretion as to whether ... the opposing party's failure to respond was due to excusable neglect or whether the movant will suffer prejudice if the motion is denied. Indeed, the objective of the rule would be defeated if the district court had to stop and investigate such matters before acting.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[A] party’s failure to file a response to a summary judgment motion is not, by itself, a sufficient basis on which to enter judgment against the party. The district court must make the additional determination that judgment for the moving party is “appropriate” under Rule 56. Summary judgment is appropriate only if the moving party demonstrates that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. By failing to file a response within the time specified by the local rule, the nonmoving party waives the right to respond or to controvert the facts asserted in the summary judgment motion. The court should accept as true all material facts asserted and properly supported in the summary judgment motion. But only if those facts entitle the moving party to judgment as a matter of law should the court grant summary judgment.”
    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.