Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 142 F.3d 83 - Li v. Canarozzi

Li v. Canarozzi’s Empirical Analysis

142 F.3d 83 · 1998

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently February 2025

11 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

1101998200020102020decided

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 Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · United States v. Abel · Oklahoma v. New Mexico · DiCarlantonio v. United States · Luster v. Cushman

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. “Because the trial judge sees the witnesses, the parties, the jurors, and the attorneys, and is thus in a superior position to evaluate the likely impact of the evidence, we will not overturn his ruling unless he has acted arbitrarily or irrationally or has otherwise abused his discretion.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “) began fighting, using makeshift weapons including billiard balls, pool cues, and metal folding chairs. Several inmates were injured. One of the corrections officers on duty in that area at the time was also injured, and he and fellow corrections officer Maurice Mayes called for help. Other corrections officers arrived to disperse the combatants. Thereafter, the officers inspected all of the inmates in order to determine which ones had fresh injuries, and hence had likely been involved in the fighting, and to take those inmates to the special housing unit on the ninth floor (”
    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.