Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 328 F.3d 813 - Beeler v. Rounsavall

Beeler v. Rounsavall’s Empirical Analysis

328 F.3d 813 · 2003

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
November 2022
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2022 · most notably Club Retro, L.L.C. v. Hilton (2009), Lindquist v. City of Pasadena (2012)

5 federal appellate · 4 state decisions

140200320102020decided

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

reviewedthe decision below (from Texas Northern District Court)

Relationships

Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Village of Willowbrook v. Olech · Oyler v. Boles · Esmail v. Macrane

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. “The “text of the Equal Protection Clause, the history leading to its adoption, [and] a century of jurisprudence that has in the main interpreted the clause to prohibit only disparate treatment based upon group or class factors” suggest that personal vindictiveness by itself is insufficient as an improper motive in the absence of some other class- or group-based discrimination. Id. at 818 (quoting Timothy Zick, Angry White Males: The Equal Protection Clause and “Classes of One,” 89 KY. L.J. 69, 75) (2000/2001). (Emphasis added).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “deliberately based upon an unjustifiable standard such as race, religion or other arbitrary classification.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the relevant criterion here is not the two stores' proximity or the similarity of their products” but”
    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.