Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 119 F.3d 917 - Summers v. Singletary

Summers v. Singletary’s Empirical Analysis

119 F.3d 917 · 1997

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
September 2014
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently September 2014

7 federal appellate · 2 district ·

110199720002010decided

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

Relies on Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. · Benjamin v. United States · Rita v. United States · Breininger v. Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n Local Union No. 6 · Gallo Winery v. Gallo Cattle Company

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

  1. “[a]ny justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “We hold that a motion to disqualify filed under § 455(b) must be filed within a reasonable time after the grounds for the motion are ascertained. Certainly, where the facts are known before a legal proceeding is held, waiting to file such a motion until the court has ruled against a party is untimely. Both Summers and his counsel were present when the circumstances underlying petitioner’s motion arose. They did not raise the issue until after an adverse decision on the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation had been entered. This was too late.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “The policy considerations supporting a timeliness requirement ... [are] to conserve judicial resources and prevent a litigant from waiting until an adverse decision has been handed down before moving to disqualify the judge.” Summers v. Singletary, 119 F.3d 917, 921 (11th Cir.1997). Thus, it serves to prevent litigants from taking a”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.