Schilling v. Schwitzer-Cummins Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• explaining the Court is “not require[d] or encourage[d] . . . to assert the negative of each rejected contention as well as the affirmative of those which [it] find[s] to be correct”
• explaining the Court is “not require[d] or encourage[d] . . . to assert the negative of each rejected contention as well as the affirmative of those which [it] find[s] to be correct”
• “While counsel may be disappointed that findings do not discuss propositions sincerely contended for, that, alone, .does not make them inadequate or suggest that such propositions were not understood by the court.”
• The Court is “not require[d] or encourage[d] . . . to assert the negative of each rejected contention as well as the affirmative of those which [it] find[s] to be correct.”
• The Court is “not require[d] or encourage[d] . . . to assert the negative of each rejected contention as well as the affirmative of those which [it] find[s] to be correct.”
• “While counsel may be disappointed that findings do not discuss propositions sincerely contended for, that, alone, does not make them inadequate or suggest that such propositions were not understood by the court.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

61 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• The Perkin-Elmer Corporation, a Corporation of New York v. Computervision Corporation, a Corporation of Delaware
  Federal Circuit· 1984-04-06· cited 392×
• Hartman v. Nicholson
  Federal Circuit· 2007-04-05· cited 219×
• Tina Deal v. The Cincinnati Board of Education
  Sixth Circuit· 1966-12-06· cited 170×
• James W. McCord Jr. v. F. Lee Bailey
  D.C. Circuit· 1980-10-15· cited 168×
• United Nuclear Corp. v. General Atomic Co.
  New Mexico Supreme Court· 1980-08-29· cited 166×
• Lasalle Extension University & Katharine Gibbs School (Inc.) v. Federal Trade Commission
  D.C. Circuit· 1980-06-05· cited 97×
• United States v. Jones
  Ninth Circuit· 1949-06-24· cited 67×
• Carr v. Yokohama Specie Bank, Limited, of San Francisco
  Ninth Circuit· 1952-11-14· cited 58×
• Louis Dreyfus & Cie. v. Panama Canal Company
  Fifth Circuit· 1962-01-18· cited 58×
• Gilliland v. Rodriquez
  Arizona Supreme Court· 1954-03-22· cited 51×
• Shapiro v. Rubens
  Seventh Circuit· 1948-02-19· cited 51×
• Hazeltine Research, Inc. v. Admiral Corp.
  Seventh Circuit· 1950-09-18· cited 49×
• In Re the Marriage of Jensen
  Montana Supreme Court· 1981-07-17· cited 46×
• The Severance
  Fourth Circuit· 1945-12-27· cited 46×
• Sacks v. Rothberg
  District of Columbia Court of Appeals· 1990-01-24· cited 44×
• Chicopee Manufacturing Corporation v. Kendall Company
  Fourth Circuit· 1961-03-28· cited 40×
• Rowell v. Kaplan
  Supreme Court of Rhode Island· 1967-11-06· cited 39×
• Latif v. Obama
  D.C. Circuit· 2011-10-14· cited 37×
• Waialua Agr. Co., Limited v. Maneja Maneja v. Waialua Agr. Co., Limited
  Ninth Circuit· 1949-11-10· cited 34×
• Knutson v. Gallsworthy
  D.C. Circuit· 1947-09-15· cited 32×