Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 154 F.3d 685 - Hendricks-Robinson v. Excel Corp.

Hendricks-Robinson v. Excel Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

154 F.3d 685 · 1998

Citation profile

164
cited by 164 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
May 2022
most recently cited

71 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 164 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2022 · most notably US Airways, Inc. v. Barnett (2002), Taylor v. Phoenixville School District (1999)

71 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions

8501998200020102020decided

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 · Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson · Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Commercial Office Products Co. · Fertel-Rust v. Milwaukee Police Department

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

  1. “With cross-motions, our review of the record requires that we construe all inferences in favor of the party against whom the motion under consideration is made.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Tegtmeier v. Midwest Operating Engineers Pension Trust Fund · Schlaf v. Safeguard Prop., LLC
  2. “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that [a] moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Arthur Ozlowski v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General · O'Regan v. Arbitration Forums, Inc.
  3. “We conduct de novo review of a district court's decision involving cross-motions for summary judgment,”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Arthur Ozlowski v. William J. Henderson, Postmaster General · O'Regan v. Arbitration Forums, Inc.

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.