George Acri v. Varian Associates, Inc.
Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.
Status
More on how this was screened
The later opinions either applied its rule on discretionary supplemental jurisdiction or reported that Acri had overruled language in earlier cases. Those history references describe what Acri did to other decisions, rather than any court rejecting Acri.
74 later cases cite George Acri v. Varian Associates, Inc.; 74 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.
Relying on George Acri v. Varian Associates, Inc.?
This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.
No reviewed court has overruled or limited this case.
Every one of the 74 flagged citations was read, and each turned out to be something other than adverse treatment: a routine application, a party's argument the court rejected, or the case itself discussing older law. That reading is the finding this page exists to report.
Does this case still carry your argument?
Describe your facts. Ezel reads George Acri v. Varian Associates, Inc. and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace