Reed v. Bennett’s Empirical Analysis
312 F.3d 1190 · 2002
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 33 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Nasious v. Two Unknown B.I.C.E. Agents (2007), Murray v. City of Tahlequah (2002)
14 federal appellate · 33 district · 9 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 · 28 U.S.C. § 2071 (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Amendments) · 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (§ 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990)
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Meade v. Grubbs · Anchorage Associates v. Virgin Islands Board of Tax Review · Hancock v. City of Oklahoma City
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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] party’s failure to file a response to a summary judgment motion is not, by itself, a sufficient basis on which to enter judgment against the party. The district court must make the additional determination that judgment for the moving party is “appropriate” under Rule 56. Summary judgment is appropriate only if the moving party demonstrates that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. By failing to file a response within the time specified by the local rule, the nonmoving party waives the right to respond or to controvert the facts asserted in the summary judgment motion. The court should accept as true all material facts asserted and properly supported in the summary judgment motion. But only if those facts entitle the moving party to judgment as a matter of law should the court grant summary judgment.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the degree of actual prejudice to the opposing party, (2) the degree of interference with the judicial process, (3) the litigant’s culpability, (4) whether the litigant was warned in advance that dismissal was a likely sanction, and (5) whether a lesser sanction would be effective.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“summary judgment must be denied even if no opposing evidentiary matter is presented.”
3 later decisions 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.