Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 32 F.3d 422 - Berg v. Leason

Berg v. Leason’s Empirical Analysis

32 F.3d 422 · 1994

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
states following
June 2015
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently June 2015 · most notably U.S. Express Lines, Ltd. v. Higgins (2002), MSR Exploration, Ltd. v. Meridian Oil, Inc. (1996)

13 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

150199420002010decided

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 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 49 U.S.C. § 11707

Relies on Franchise Tax Board of the State of California v. Construction Laborers Vacation Trust for Southern California · Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams · Gully v. First Nat. Bank in Meridian · Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Thompson Ex Rel. Thompson · Raphan v. United States

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

  1. “federal law is not dispositive because the degree of strength required to put the underlying claim over the probable cause threshold is determined by state law.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “present[ ] a substantial dispute over the effect of federal law, and the result [must[ turn[ ] on the federal question.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the federal element is insufficiently substantial to confer `arising under' jurisdiction because the malicious prosecution court need only decide whether the underlying claim was `legally tenable[;]' the cause of action is created by state law, and state law controls the standard by which the strength of the federal claim in the underlying action is measured.”
    2 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.