Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 130 SW3D 59 - Young v. Barrow

Young v. Barrow’s Empirical Analysis

2003

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
1
states following
September 2021
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 31 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably In Re Estate of Boote (2005), REGIONS FINANCIAL CORP. v. Marsh USA, Inc. (2009)

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 31 state decisions

170200320102020decided

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 Hughes v. Rowe · Baxter v. Rose · Richardson v. Tennessee Board of Dentistry · Stein v. Davidson Hotel Co. · Jordan v. Johns

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

  1. “However, the courts must also be mindful of the boundary between fairness to a pro se litigant and unfairness to the pro se litigant’s adversary. Thus, the courts must not excuse pro se litigants from complying with the same substantive and procedural rules that represented parties are expected to observe.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Thus, an appeal in which the reviewing court's ability to address the issues raised is undermined by the appellant's failure to provide an adequate record is deemed frivolous because it has no reasonable chance of succeeding.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Parties asserting a res judicata defense must demonstrate (1) that a court of competent jurisdiction rendered the pri- or judgment, (2) that the prior judgment was final and on the merits, (3) that both proceedings involved the same parties or their privies, and (4) that both proceedings involved the same cause of 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.