Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 194 F.3d 1045 - Katuria E. Smith v. Tyson Marsh

Katuria E. Smith v. Tyson Marsh’s Empirical Analysis

194 F.3d 1045 · 1999

Citation profile

689
cited by 689 later decisions
3
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

134 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 689 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Brooks v. City of San Mateo (2000), McGinest v. GTE Service Corp. (2004)

134 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

43901999200020102020decided

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 Brookfield Communications, Inc. v. West Coast Entertainment Corp. · Pennsylvania Department of Corrections v. Yeskey · Northwest Forest Resource Council v. Glickman · Entertainment Research Group, Inc. v. Genesis Creative Group, Inc.

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

  1. “[O]n appeal, arguments not raised by a party in its opening brief are deemed waived.”
    17 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “not consider arguments that are raised for the first time on appeal,”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) the motion must be timely; (2) the applicant must have a significantly protectable interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede its ability to protect its interest; and (4) the applicant’s interest must be inadequately represented by the parties to the action.”
    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.