Berin v. Olson’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 151 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 156 later decisions — most recently August 2012 · most notably Cummings v. Tripp (1987), Pet v. Department of Health Services (1988)
3 federal appellate · 151 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 Bianco v. Town of Darien · Bozzi v. Bozzi · Dupuis v. Submarine Base Credit Union, Inc. · Moore v. Serafin · City of Hartford v. American Arbitration Ass'n
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 156 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a] party seeking injunctive relief has the burden of alleging and proving irreparable harm and lack of an adequate remedy at law.”
14 later decisions quote this exact passage“In exercising its discretion, the court, in a proper case, may consider and balance the injury complained of with that which will result from interference by injunction.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“[t]he plaintiff must establish that protectable interests are at stake, that it will prevail, to a reasonable certainty, subsequent to a final heating on its application for permanent injunction, and also irreparable injury and lack of an adequate remedy at law . . . . the principal purpose of such an injunction is to preserve the status quo until the rights of the parties can be finally determined after hearing on the merits . . . . In deciding whether it should be granted . . . the court is called upon to balance the results which may be caused to one party or the other, and if it appears that to deny . . . it may result in great harm to the plaintiff and little to the defendant, the court may well exercise its discretion in favor of granting . . . it, unless indeed, it is very clear that the plaintiff is without legal right . . . . The court must consider the probable outcome of the litigation, and whether an irreparable loss will result unless the status quo is preserved.”
5 later decisions 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.