Cunningham v. David Special Commitment Center’s Empirical Analysis
158 F.3d 1035 · 1998
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently April 2018
7 federal appellate · 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
Relies on Youngberg v. Romeo Ex Rel. Romeo · Kansas v. Hendricks · Idaho Farm Bureau Federation v. Babbitt · Motorola, Inc. v. Computer Displays International, Inc. · Stone
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) it has a significant protectable interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject of the action; (2) the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the applicant's ability to protect its interest; (3) the application is timely; and (4) the existing parties may not adequately represent the applicant's interest.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“substantially alters the legal relations of the parties”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.