Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 115 F.3d 348 - Millar v. Houghton

Millar v. Houghton’s Empirical Analysis

115 F.3d 348 · 1997

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
February 2002
most recently cited

5 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Lavespere v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works, Inc. · Bon Air Hotel, Inc. v. Time, Inc. · McKethan v. Texas Farm Bureau · NL Industries, Inc. v. GHR Energy Corp. · Stella v. Town of Tewksbury

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

  1. “Under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c), a party must be served with a motion for summary judgment at least 10 days before a court grants the motion against him. Similarly, a party must be given at least 10 days notice before a court grants summary judgment sua sponte. This requirement places a party on notice that he is in jeopardy of having his case dismissed and affords him the opportunity to put forth evidence to show precisely how he intends to prove his case at trial.”
    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.