Zip Dee, Inc. v. Dometic Corp.’s Empirical Analysis
1996
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 476
Relies on Foman v. Davis · Paragon Podiatry Laboratory, Inc. v. KLM Laboratories, Inc. · Perrian v. E O'Grady · Quaker Alloy Casting Co. v. Gulfco Industries, Inc. · General Electro Music Corp. v. Samick Music Corp.
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 1 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“But that is extraordinarily unpersuasive, so much so that it appears to border on the disingenuous — if indeed it has not crossed that border. Dometic seeks to obscure the. already-quoted contention that was contained in its own motion, which in the course of stressing its position that little delay will be occasioned by the current injection of its claim (in the same vein, Dometic’s Motion at 2 said that it “anticipates a very limited amount of discovery unique to the proposed counterclaim”) confessed that the Counterclaim is based on the same facts on which Dometic originally presented AD 12 more than two years earlier.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“It may be that Zip Dee is so taken aback at losing on any issue in this litigation (for the most part it has been the prevailing party in the opinions and rulings that this Court has been called upon to issue in this bitterly contested lawsuit) that it believes that this Court must have made a mistake: It said “motion denied” when it really meant to say “motion granted.””
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.