Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 138 F.3d 577 - Conkling v. Turner

Conkling v. Turner’s Empirical Analysis

138 F.3d 577 · 1998

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
2
states following
December 2016
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently December 2016

9 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

100199820002010decided

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 Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Liteky et al United States · In the Matters of Lee Roy Murchison and John Whites · Terrell v. Household Goods Carriers' Bureau · Conkling v. Turner

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

  1. “As a general rule, for purposes of recu-sal, a judge’s “ ‘personal’ knowledge of evidentiary facts means ‘extrajudicial,’ ” so “facts learned by a judge in his or her judicial capacity regarding the parties before the court, whether learned in the same or a related proceeding, cannot be the basis for disqualification.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We have stated that '[a]s a general rule, for purposes of recusal, a judge’s “personal” knowledge of evidentiary facts means “extrajudicial,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “of all questions which were within the issues of the case and which, therefore, might have been decided.”
    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.