Spraytex, Inc. v. DJS&T’s Empirical Analysis
96 F.3d 1377 · 1996
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Trilogy Communications, Inc. v. Times Fiber Communications, Inc. (1997), United States Hampton v. Columbia/hca Healthcare Corp (2003)
8 federal appellate · 4 district · 8 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
Relies on Woodard v. Sage Products, Inc. · Huene v. United States · Beil v. Lakewood Engineering & Manufacturing Co. · In re Innotron Diagnostics · Ringwald v. Harris
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Judgment Upon Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties. When more than one claim for relief is presented in an action, whether as a claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party claim, or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct the entry of a final judgment as to one or more but fewer than all of the claims or parties only upon an express determination that there is no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment. In the absence of such determination and direction, any order or other form of decision, however designated, which adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties shall not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties, and the order or other form of decision is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating all the claims and the rights and liabilities of all the parties.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“of an appeal from a final decision of a district court of the United States.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Rule 54(b) requires clear and unmistakable direction by the district court before appeal may be taken on less than all claims in a case. In doing so, the court must make an express statement of finality and indicate the lack of a just reason for delay. W.L. Gore & Assocs., Inc. v. International Medical Prosthetics Research Assocs., Inc., 975 F.2d 858 , 24 USPQ2d 1195 (Fed. Cir.1992).”
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.