Members v. Paige’s Empirical Analysis
140 F.3d 699 · 1998
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently November 2019 · most notably Bobby J. Anderson v. Alfred Hardman (2001), Paters v. United States (1998)
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Estelle v. Gamble · Haines v. Kerner · Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. · Houston v. Lack · Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Discretion implies the power to say no, but when deciding whether to grant or deny such a motion a judge is entitled to consider all circumstances ... that may have contributed to the delay. Rule 39(b) does not require litigants to surmount a hurdle such as ‘excusable neglect’; it is an open-ended grant of discretion, and relief under this rule cannot sensibly be limited to the blind.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Issues not demanded for trial by jury as provided in Rule 38 shall be tried by the court; but, notwithstanding the failure of a party to demand a jury in an action in which such a demand might have been made of right, the court in its discretion upon motion may order a trial by a jury of any or all issues.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“because the plaintiff is a prisoner and the case concerns `conditions of con-fmement' ... the judge could refer the case to a magistrate judge for a hearing and recommendation under § 636(b)(1)(B), subject to de novo review by the district judge”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pinkston v. Madry
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.