Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 123 F.3d 756 - Boley v. Kaymark

Boley v. Kaymark’s Empirical Analysis

123 F.3d 756 · 1997

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
2
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Zapata v. City of New York (2007), Troxell v. Fedders of North America, Inc. (1998)

12 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions

2401997200020102020decided

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. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)

Relies on Shieh v. State Bar · Lieb v. Topstone Industries, Inc. · Petrucelli v. Bohringer and Ratzinger Gmbh · Barton v. Landmark Land Co. of Carolina · MCI Telecommunications Corp. v. Teleconcepts, Inc.

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

  1. “as a result of the rule change which led to Rule 4(m), when entertaining a motion to extend time for service, the district court must proceed in the following manner. First, the district court should determine whether good cause exists for an extension of time. If good cause is present, the district court must extend time for service and the inquiry is ended. If, however, good cause does not exist, the court may in its discretion decide whether to dismiss the case without prejudice or extend time for service.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the running of the statute of limitations is a factor supporting the discretionary granting of an extension of time to make service[.]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “relief may be justified... if the applicable statute of limitations would bar the refiled action,”
    1 later decision 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.