Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 208 F.3d 1180 - Thomas Hutchinson v. Richard Pfeil

Thomas Hutchinson v. Richard Pfeil’s Empirical Analysis

208 F.3d 1180 · 2000

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
1
states following
September 2024
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Shrader v. Biddinger (2011), Hunter v. Earthgrains Co. Bakery (2002)

8 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

250200020102020decided

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 Chambers v. Nasco, Inc. · Ansari v. Pahlavi · White v. General Motors Corp. · United States v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America · Beach v. Ocwen Federal Bank

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

  1. “[a]n appellee may defend the judgment won below on any ground supported by the record without filing a cross appeal.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “effectively seek[s] to reverse a ruling lost below in the guise of an alternate-ground affirmance,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “actual notice and a real opportunity to be heard could substitute for the formal procedures specified in Fed.R.Civ.P. 11(c).” Id. at 1185 . Considering the District Court's remand and the amount of due process afforded here, this case may very well qualify as such exceptional circumstances. Additionally, even had the current version of Rule 9011 applied, Schwartz is incorrect that the word”
    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.