Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 142 F.3d 1059 - Cross v. Cleaver

Cross v. Cleaver’s Empirical Analysis

142 F.3d 1059 · 1998

Citation profile

149
cited by 149 later decisions
2
states following
April 2016
most recently cited

90 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 149 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably Tammy Scusa v. Nestle US a Company Inc (1999), Howard v. Burns Bros. (1998)

90 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions

1000199820002010decided

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 Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson · United States v. Young · Palmer v. Hoffman · Hebert v. Brown · Agency Holding Corp. v. Malley-Duff & Associates, Inc.

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

  1. ““[Cjonsider the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party, assume that the jury resolved all conflicts of evidence in favor of that party, assume as true all facts which the prevailing party’s evidence tended to prove, give the prevailing party the benefit of all favorable inferences which may reasonably be drawn from the facts, and deny the motion, if in light of the foregoing, reasonable jurors could differ as to the conclusion that could be drawn from the evidence.””
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “only if the error prejudices the substantial rights of a party and would result in a miscarriage of justice if left uncorrected.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the judicial proceedings.”
    4 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.