Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 132 F.3d 609 - Murray v. Archambo

Murray v. Archambo’s Empirical Analysis

132 F.3d 609 · 1998

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
3
states following
July 2019
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably Reed v. Bennett (2002), Grynberg v. Koch Gateway Pipeline Co. (2004)

12 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

190199820002010decided

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 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Haines v. Kerner · Mobley v. McCormick · Hancock v. City of Oklahoma City · King v. Dogan · Reynoldson v. Shillinger

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

  1. “amendment that has been filed or served without leave of court or consent of the defendants is without legal effect .”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[O]nly when these aggravating factors outweighed the judicial system's strong predisposition to resolve cases on their merits is outright dismissal with prejudice an appropriate sanction.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “(1) the degree of actual prejudice to the defendants; (2) the amount of interference with the judicial process; and (3) the culpability of the litigant.”
    2 later decisions 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.