Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 130 F.3d 568 - Williams v. Runyon

Williams v. Runyon’s Empirical Analysis

130 F.3d 568 · 1997

Citation profile

99
cited by 99 later decisions
2
states following
February 2022
most recently cited

30 federal appellate · 14 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Ray v. Kertes (2002), Michael Massey and John Otten, M.D. v. David Helman (2000)

30 federal appellate · 14 district · 2 state decisions

4401997200020102020decided

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 Messenger v. Anderson · Bowden v. United States · Collins v. State · Halsell v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. · Brown v. Marsh

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

  1. “failure to exhaust administrative remedies is an affirmative defense in the nature of statute[s] of limitations.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Consequently, the district court entered judgment as a matter of law in favor of the Postmaster. 12 Williams timely appealed. II. 13 The first issue we address on appeal is whether the Postmaster had waived his right to a renewed judgment as a matter of law on exhaustion grounds by not specifically raising that issue in the original motion for a judgment as a matter of law. Fed R. Civ. P. 50(a)(2) requires that a motion for a judgment as a matter of law”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “'[T]he law of the case doctrine does not limit the power of trial judges to reconsider their prior decisions,' but ... when a court does so, it must explain on the record why it is doing so and 'take appropriate steps so that the parties are not prejudiced by reliance on the prior ruling.'”
    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.