Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 313 F.3d 1295 - Trawinski v. United Technologies

Trawinski v. United Technologies’s Empirical Analysis

313 F.3d 1295 · 2002

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
May 2022
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably Caldwell v. Warden, FCI Talladega (2014), Cook v. Randolph County (2009)

6 federal appellate · 2 district ·

230200220102020decided

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. § 2462 · 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 42 U.S.C. § 6292

Relies on Bonner v. City of Prichard · DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters · Griffin v. Breckenridge · Occidental Life Insurance Company of California v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic

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

  1. “(1) a conspiracy, (2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; and (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy, (4) whereby a person is either injured in his person or property or deprived of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Except as otherwise provided by Act of Congress, an action, suit or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture, pecuniary or otherwise, shall not be entertained unless commenced within five years from the date when the claim first accrued if, within the same period, the offender is found within the United States in order that proper service may be made thereon.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Tannenbaum v. United States , 148 F.3d 1262 , 1263 (11th Cir. 1998). However, this”
    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.