Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 33 F.3d 182 - Armstrong v. Sears

Armstrong v. Sears’s Empirical Analysis

33 F.3d 182 · 1994

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
1
states following
March 2010
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently March 2010 · most notably Simpkins v. District of Columbia Government (1997), Arar v. Ashcroft (2009)

16 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

190199420002010decided

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. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1391 · 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. · Stafford v. Briggs · Perini v. Downey · Romandette v. Weetabix Co.

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

  1. “If service of the summons and complaint is not made upon a defendant within 120 days after the filing of the complaint, the court ... shall dismiss the action without prejudice as to that defendant or direct that service be effected within a specified time; provided that plaintiff shows good cause for the failure, the court shall extend the time for service for an appropriate period.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “in a Bivens case, personal service should be made upon the individual defendant in accordance with Rule 4(e) instead of upon that individual as a government officer in accordance with Rule 4(i)(2)”
    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.