Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 164 F.3d 820 - Stuto v. Fleishman

Stuto v. Fleishman’s Empirical Analysis

164 F.3d 820 · 1999

Citation profile

150
cited by 150 later decisions
January 2019
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 5 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 150 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Joel Rothman v. Andrew Gregor (2000), Goldstein v. Pataki (2008)

12 federal appellate · 5 district ·

830199920002010decided

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 Conley v. Gibson · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Mathews v. Eldridge · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Parratt v. Taylor

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

  1. “(1) extreme and outrageous conduct; (2) intent to cause, or reckless disregard of a substantial probability of causing severe emotional distress; (3) causal connection between the conduct and injury; and (4) severe emotional distress.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “go beyond all possible bounds of decency”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “>It has not been enough that the defendant has acted with an intent which is tortious or even criminal, or that he has intended to inflict emotional distress, or even that, his conduct has, been characterized by “malice,” or a degree of aggravation which would entitle the plaintiff to punitive damages for another tort.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.