LiButti v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
178 F.3d 114 · 1999
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably Wiwa v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. (2000), Deprenyl Animal Health, Inc. v. University of Toronto Innovations Foundation (2002)
9 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 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 International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Burger King Corporation v. Rudzewicz · World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson · Hanson v. Denckla · Shaffer v. Heitner
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Rule 61 sets out a workable test for when to grant a new trial, counseling that no error is ground for granting a new trial “unless refusal to take such action appears to the court inconsistent with substantial justice.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 61. That is to say, a trial court should be most reluctant to set aside that which it has previously decided unless convinced that it was based on a mistake of fact or clear error of law, or that refusal to revisit the earlier decision would work a manifest injustice. See Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605 , 618 n. 8, 103 S.Ct. 1382 , 75 L.Ed.2d 318 (1983). Certainly, a trial court should not grant a new trial simply because, like the proverbial second bite at the apple, the losing party believes it can present a better case if afforded another chance.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“An adverse inference may be given significant weight because silence when one would be expected to speak is a powerful persuader.”
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.