Jean v. Dugan’s Empirical Analysis
20 F.3d 255 · 1994
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Mayer v. Gary Partners & Co. (1994), Nucor Corporation v. Aceros Y Maquilas De Occidente Sa De Cv (1994)
19 federal appellate · 2 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
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 142 (§ 501 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act)) · 29 U.S.C. § 402
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Erie Co v. Tompkins · Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) the place [or places] where the conduct causing the injury occurred; 2) the residence or place of business of the parties; and 3) the place where the relationship is centered.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred is the most significant factor.... Conceptually, defamation is an injury to reputation.”) (internal quotation omitted). Because both Indiana and Michigan require that a plaintiff articulate a defamatory statement in his complaint, a more detailed choice of law analysis is unnecessary. See id. at 260 (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“bearing in mind the Hubbard court's directive to evaluate the factors 'according to their relative importance to the particular issues being litigated,' we think it clear that 'the place where the conduct causing the injury occurred' is the most sig nificant factor and that it favors our application of Indiana law.”
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.