Jirau-Bernal v. Agrait’s Empirical Analysis
37 F.3d 1 · 1994
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 25 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably Ciambriello v. County of Nassau (2002), Hegarty v. Somerset County (1995)
28 federal appellate · 25 district ·
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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · Rutan v. Republican Party of Illinois · Burnley v. Railway Labor Executives' Ass'n · Nereida-Gonzalez v. Tirado-Delgado · Acevedo-Diaz v. Aponte
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 58 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“compel[s] the finding that political discrimination did not constitute a 'but for' cause for the”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(i.e., sole and indefeasible) jurisdiction over the Rule 10b-5 claim and, as a consequence, that he was victimized by an unfair procedural ambush. Although we reject Wolf's characterization, 2 we hold that the district court erred in ruling that the federal securities claim was precluded by the arbitral award on the state-law claims. II DISCUSSION A. Standards Of Review 9 We review a grant of summary judgment de novo, under the identical legal standards governing the district court, in order to determine whether”
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.