Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 172 F.2d 95 - Gibson v. Reynolds

Gibson v. Reynolds’s Empirical Analysis

172 F.2d 95 · 1949

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
July 1970
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 1970 · most notably Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. (1949), Matson v. Margiotti (1952)

16 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions

1801949195019601970decided

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 Spalding v. Vilas · Cox v. United States · Cooper v. O'Connor · Gibson v. United States · Lang v. Wood

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

  1. “• “But when a litigant contends that the factual allegations of his complaint demonstrate that a group of public officers, presumed to have done their duty, were guilty of such wanton, spiteful, malicious prejudice that their acts, ostensibly done in the performance of their statutory duties, were therefore not acts done ‘in relation to or connected with’ those duties but were in fact vengeful acts committed for the purpose of personally injuring the litigant, the reviewing court must examine those factual allegations with meticulous care to determine whether such a case is stated. For, as frequently stated by the courts, it is easy for a disgruntled litigant to state his conclusion, and to even believe, that the officer responsible for the real or imagined injustice was guilty of the rankest kind of malice.” 25”
    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.