Macaulay v. Anas’s Empirical Analysis
321 F.3d 45 · 2003
Citation profile
47 federal appellate · 36 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 103 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably Gomez v. Rivera Rodriguez (2003), Esposito v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. (2009)
47 federal appellate · 36 district · 2 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
Relies on National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, Inc. · United States v. Procter & Gamble Co. · Fashion House, Inc. v. K Mart Corp. · United States v. Saccoccia · Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc.
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 103 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the history of the litigation, the proponent's need for the challenged evidence, the justification (if any) for the late disclosure, and the opponent's ability to overcome its adverse effects.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“was so wide of the mark as to constitute an abuse of discretion.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“had the district court allowed the late submission, it would have had a Hob-son’s choice: either to force the defense to trial without appropriate preparation (such as targeted pretrial discovery) or to reopen discovery and vacate the trial assignment. Under those circumstances, it is surpassingly difficult to fault the court for refusing to overlook the discovery violation.”
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.