Jackson v. Anchor Packing Co.’s Empirical Analysis
994 F.2d 1295 · 1993
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 5 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Rose-Maston v. NME Hospitals, Inc. (1998), Wright v. Willamette Industries, Inc. (1996)
36 federal appellate · 5 district · 11 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 Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Erie Co v. Tompkins · Salve Regina College v. Russell · Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Estate J Bosch Second National Bank of New Haven
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Ojpposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein.The court may permit affidavits to be supplemented or opposed by depositions, answers to interrogatories, or further affidavits. When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party’s pleading, but the adverse party’s response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) [Plaintiff] was exposed to a particular asbestos-containing product made by the [Defendant], (2) With sufficient frequency and regularity, (3) In proximity to where [Plaintiff] actually worked, (4) Such that it is probable that the exposure to [Defendant's] products caused [Plaintiff's] injuries.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“we are bound to apply [Oklahoma law] as we are able to discern it from the rulings of [Oklahoma's] courts.”
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.