Wright v. Montgomery County’s Empirical Analysis
215 F.3d 367 · 2000
Citation profile
39 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably Ei Dupont De Nemours and Company Delaware Corporation v. Rhone Poulenc Fiber and Resin Intermediates Sas (2001), Bryant v. CEO DeKalb Co. (2009)
39 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866)
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · Johnson v. Jones
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a discretionary, though `narrow,' doctrine of pendent appellate jurisdiction. But we have also concluded that the doctrine should be used `sparingly,' and only where there is a sufficient overlap in the facts relevant to both the appealable and non-appealable issues to warrant plenary review. We have also stated that `pendent appellate jurisdiction over an otherwise unappealable order is available only to the extent necessary to ensure meaningful review of an appealable order.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“conclusively determine the disputed issue, the issue must be completely separate from the merits of the action, and the decision must be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““Although the [lower court] did not expressly address the Appellants’ immunity claims, it denied the motions for summary judgment in which those claims were asserted. We hold that this implicit denial of the Appellants’ immunity claims is sufficient to confer appellate jurisdiction.””
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.