Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 377 F.3d 559 - Capobianco Dc v. Summers

Capobianco Dc v. Summers’s Empirical Analysis

377 F.3d 559 · 2004

Citation profile

18
cited by 18 later decisions
1
states following
August 2020
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 18 later decisions — most recently August 2020

3 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

120200420102020decided

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 City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center · Central Hudson Gas Electric Corporation v. Public Service Commission of New York · Rav v. City of St Paul Minnesota · Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar · Board of Trustees of State Univ. of NY v. Fox

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

  1. “(1) whether the movant has a strong or substantial likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant would suffer irreparable injury without the relief requested; (3) whether issuance of the injunction will cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the public interest will be served by issuance of the injunction.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) whether there is a likelihood he will succeed on the merits of the appeal; (2) whether there is a likelihood he will suffer irreparable harm absent a stay; (3) whether the stay will cause substantial harm to others; and (4) whether the injunction would serve the public interest.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Chief among the reasons for our [prior] decision was the fact that the statute contained no time limit at all on the restriction of access to accident victims.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.