United States v. Kramer

How courts have described this case

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

• stating a district court has inherent power to control the disposition of cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel and for litigants
• stating a district court has inherent power to control the disposition of cases on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel and for litigants

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

5 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Liberty Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Marketing Corp.
  D. New Jersey· 1993-05-14· cited 85×
• Active Products Corp. v. A.H. Choitz & Co.
  N.D. Indiana· 1995-08-22· cited 3×
• Rodriguez v. Shell Oil Co.
  S.D. Texas· 1996-11-06· cited 1×
• Pinal Creek Group v. Newmont Mining Corp.
  D. Arizona· 2003-09-24· cited 1×
• United States v. Kramer
  D. New Jersey· 2010-12-09

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Landis v. North American Co.
  Supreme Court· 1936-12-07· cited 5,442×
• Abbot v. Hagner Management Corp.
  Supreme Court· 1986-03-03· cited 230×
• United States v. Kramer
  D. New Jersey· 1991-02-08· cited 117×
• Gold v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp.
  Third Circuit· 1983-12-07· cited 96×
• Barnes v. Cohen
  Third Circuit· 1984-11-23· cited 86×
• United States v. Rohm & Haas Co.
  D. New Jersey· 1989-09-29· cited 59×
• United States v. Rohm and Haas Co., Inc.
  D. New Jersey· 1987-08-19· cited 25×
• Patricia Albert, Errol Albert v. Abramson's Enterprises, Inc. Government of the Virgin Islands. Appeal of Government of the Virgin Islands
  Third Circuit· 1986-05-23· cited 9×
• United States v. New Castle County
  D. Delaware· 1987-04-10· cited 5×