Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 1 F.3d 176 - Kost v. Kozakiewicz

Kost v. Kozakiewicz’s Empirical Analysis

1 F.3d 176 · 1993

Citation profile

822
cited by 822 later decisions
3
states following
August 2025
most recently cited

84 federal appellate · 125 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 822 later decisions — most recently August 2025 · most notably Hare v. City of Corinth, Miss. (1994), United States v. Pelullo (2005)

84 federal appellate · 125 district · 9 state decisions

41401993200020102020decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Estelle v. Gamble · Parratt v. Taylor · Daniels v. Williams

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 822 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “required to set forth the issues raised on appeal and to present an argument in support of those issues in [his] opening brief.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “protections of the Eighth Amendment would seem to establish a floor of sorts”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “absent extraordinary circumstances, briefs must contain statements of all issues presented for appeal, together with supporting arguments and citations.”
    3 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.