Allison v. K’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 24 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently February 2023 · most notably M.D. Mark, Inc. v. Kerr-McGee Corp. (2009), 388 F. Supp. 2d 1207 - In Re Sprint Corp. ERISA Litigation (2004)
2 federal appellate · 24 district ·
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 Mertens v. Hewitt Associates · Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. · Crawford Fitting Company v. Jt Gibbons Inc Champion International Corporation · Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co. · Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Supreme Court has recognized that the separate-document rule must be “mechanically applied” in determining whether an appeal is timely, Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis, 435 U.S. 381, 386 , 98 S.Ct. 1117 , 55 L.Ed.2d 357 (1978) (internal citation omitted), and has stated further that, “absent a formal judgment,” a district court’s order remains appealable. Shalala v. Schaefer, 509 U.S. 292, 303 , 113 S.Ct. 2625 , 125 L.Ed.2d 239 (1993). Although parties may waive Rule 58’s separate-document requirement by allowing an appeal to go forward, see Bankers Trust, 435 U.S. at 384 , 98 S.Ct. 1117 , such waiver cannot be used to defeat appellate jurisdiction. Clough v. Rush, 959 F.2d 182, 186 (10th Cir.1992).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under Colorado law, an exculpatory agreement, which attempts to insulate a party from liability from his own negligence, must be closely scrutinized. In determining the validity of such an agreement, Colorado courts consider four factors: (1) the existence of a duty to the public, (2) the nature of the service performed, (3) whether the contract was fairly entered into, and (4) whether the intention of the parties is expressed in clear and unambiguous language.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“consider the instructions as a whole de novo to determine whether they accurately informed the jury of the governing 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.