Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 266 F.3d 1083 - Nicholas v. Wallenstein

Nicholas v. Wallenstein’s Empirical Analysis

266 F.3d 1083 · 2001

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
1
states following
February 2024
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Kennedy Jd v. City of Ridgefield Wa (2006), Jenkins v. Boise Cascade Corp. (2005)

7 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

160200120102020decided

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 Wood v. Ostrander · Margolis v. Ryan · 90 Wash. 2d 123 - Hearst Corp. v. Hoppe · 109 Wash. 2d 712 - Cowles Publishing Co. v. State Patrol · Program Engineering, Inc. v. Triangle Publications, 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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[a]t the moment [the state official] released the incident reports he knew that the crowd to whom he was releasing them believed that personnel connected with the jail had killed”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “plaintiffs failed to produce evidence that would create a triable issue of material fact showing that the danger was known or obvious to the defendants.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Knowing that the crowd was angry was not knowing that they would take criminal measures to make the jailors or their health helpers pay.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.