Revell v. Hoffman’s Empirical Analysis
309 F.3d 1228 · 2002
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2024 · most notably Olsen, Olsen v. Layton Hills Mall (2002)
4 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. · St. Amant v. Thompson
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“' McFarlane, 91 F.3d at 1512 -13 (quoting St. Amant, 390 U.S. at 732 , 88 S.Ct. 1323 ). However, malice cannot be `measured by whether a reasonably prudent man would have published, or would have investigated before publishing.' St. Amant, 390 U.S. at 731 , 88 S.Ct. 1323 (emphasis added). Indeed, the failure to investigate does not constitute malice, unless the failure evidences `”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“[w]e view the evidence and draw any inferences in a light most favorable to the nonmoving party, but the party opposing summary judgment must identify sufficient evidence that would require submission of the case to a jury. It is not enough that the nonmovant’s evidence be merely colorable or anything short of significantly probative.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“It is not seriously contended, and could not be, that the fact respondent no longer supervised the Area when the column appeared has decisional significance here. To be sure, there may be cases where a person is so far removed from a former position of authority that comment on the manner in which he performed his responsibilities no longer has the interest necessary to justify the New York Times rule. But here the management of the Area was still a matter of lively public interest; propositions for further change were abroad, and public interest in the way in which the prior administration had done its task continued strong. The comment, if it referred to respondent, referred to his performance of duty as a county employee.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Hill v. Stubson
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.