Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 230 F.3d 765 - Justin Love

Justin Love’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
October 2023
most recently cited

2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently October 2023 · most notably 477 F. App'x 200 - De Franceschi v. BAC Home Loans Servicing, L.P. (2012), 255 F. App'x 775 - General Retail Services, Inc. v. Wireless Toyz Franchise, LLC (2007)

2 district ·

360200020102020decided

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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc. · Agency Holding Corporation v. Malley-Duff & Associates Inc Crown Life Insurance Company

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

  1. “Because the RICO statute requires a showing of “injury”, 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (c), and the injury discovery rule calculates accrual from the discovery of that injury, accrual of a civil RICO claim is delayed until the plaintiff is aware, or should have been aware, of the injury. To the extent that the district court's opinion could be interpreted as holding that [plaintiffs] civil RICO claims accrued when it became aware in 1991 of Appellees’ allegedly fraudulent conduct, such a conclusion would be erroneous, because, again, under the injury discovery rule, the claims did not accrue until [plaintiff] knew, or should have known, that it suffered an injury caused by that allegedly fraudulent conduct.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “where the party against whom summary judgment is granted moves for reconsideration under FED. R. CIV. P. 59(e), but does not, in that motion, challenge the procedural propriety of the summary judgment ruling, our court has reviewed the asserted procedural irregularity, raised for the first time on appeal, only for plain error.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[I]t is well-settled that a district court may grant summary judgment sua sponte, so long as the losing party has ten days notice to come forward with all of its evidence in opposition to summary judgment.”
    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.