Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 112 F.3d 329 - Dupre v. Fru-Con Engineering Inc.

Dupre v. Fru-Con Engineering Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

112 F.3d 329 · 1997

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
1
states following
March 2017
most recently cited

44 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably Cross v. Cleaver (1998), Russell v. Plano Bank & Trust (1997)

44 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

260199720002010decided

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. § 636

Relies on Reves v. Ernst & Young · Neshewat v. Hagstrom · Wyshak v. American Savings Bank, F.A. · Alabama Great Southern Railroad v. Louisiana · Consolidated Rail Corp. v. LeStrange

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

  1. “[n]o party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless that party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds of the objection.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Our law on this subject is crystal clear: to preserve an argument concerning a jury instruction for appellate review, a party must state distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds for the objection on the record.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Repetitious instructions that place undue emphasis on a certain aspect of a party's case so as to prejudice the jury require reversal.”
    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.