Mockler v. Multnomah County’s Empirical Analysis
140 F.3d 808 · 1998
Citation profile
40 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Hangarter v. Provident Life & Accident Insurance (2004), Gilbrook v. City of Westminster (1999)
40 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 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. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Henson v. City of Dundee · Andrews v. City of Philadelphia · Ellison v. Brady · Katz v. Dole · Steiner v. Showboat Operating Co.
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f the instructions are challenged as a misstatement of the law, they are then reviewed de novo.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Paul Gilbrook Michael Garrison Don Herr Hal Raphael Dana Bowler Joe Wilson, Davis, Reno & Courtney, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee v. City of Westminster Charles v. Smith Craig Schweisinger Tony Lam Don S. Anderson John T. Demonaco Brian Mayhew, Paul Gilbrook Michael Garrison Don Herr Hal Raphael Dana Bowler Westminster Fire Fighters Association, Local 2425 Joe Wilson International Association of Fire Fighters, Afl-Cio, Davis, Reno & Courtney, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee v. City of Westminster Charles v. Smith Craig Schweisinger Tony Lam Don S. Anderson John T. Demonaco Brian Mayhew, Paul Gilbrook Michael Garrison Don Herr Hal Raphael Dana Bowler Westminster Fire Fighters Association, Local 2425 International Association of Fire Fighters, Afl-Cio Joe Wilson, Davis, Reno & Courtney, Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellee v. City of Westminster Charles v. Smith Craig Schweisinger Tony Lam Don S. Anderson John T. Demonaco Brian Mayhew · Gilbrook“substantial latitude in tailoring jury instructions, [and ] we review the formulation of those instructions for abuse of discretion.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Louis G. Navellier, an Individual and Trustee and Shareholder of the Navellier Series Fund (Recently Renamed the Mfs Series Trust) Rosemary J. McLachlan Martin Billett William Rautenberg Faith C. Rautenberg Mark Schulz Gail Sullivan Thomas Sullivan v. Kenneth Sletten, an Individual and Trustee of the Navellier Series Fund (Recently Renamed the Mfs Series Trust) Donald Simon, Louis G. Navellier, an Individual and Trustee and Shareholder of the Navellier Series Fund (Recently Renamed the Mfs Series Trust) Rosemary J. McLachlan Martin Billett William Rautenberg Faith C. Rautenberg Mark Schulz Gail Sullivan Thomas Sullivan v. Kenneth Sletten, an Individual and Trustee of the Navellier Series Fund (Recently Renamed the Mfs Series Trust) Donald Simon, and Arnold Scott Roy Adams Massachusetts Financial Services, Rosemary J. McLachlan Louis G. Navellier, an Individual and Trustee and Shareholder of the Navellier Series Fund (Recently Renamed the Mfs Series Trust) Martin Billett William Rautenberg Faith C. Rautenberg Mark Schulz Gail Sullivan Thomas Sullivan v. Kenneth Sletten, an Individual and Trustee of the Navellier Series Fund (Recently Renamed the Mfs Series Trust), and Donald Simon · Linda Voohries-Larson Betsy Keilen Charlene Townsend v. Cessna Aircraft Co Black Corporations“(b) Renewing Motion for Judgment After Trial; Alternative Motion for New Trial. If, for any reason, the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of all the evidence, the court is considered to have submitted the action to the jury subject to the court’s later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion. The movant may renew its request for judgment as a matter of law by filing a motion no later than 10 days after entry of judgment- and may alternatively request a new trial or join a motion for a new trial under Rule 59. In ruling on a renewed motion, the court may: (1) if a verdict was returned: (A) allow the judgment to stand, (B) order a new trial, or (C) direct entry of judgment as a matter of law.”
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.