Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 378 F.2d 101 - Davis v. Operation Amigo, Inc.

Davis v. Operation Amigo, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

378 F.2d 101 · 1967

Citation profile

59
cited by 59 later decisions
5
states following
June 2016
most recently cited

41 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 59 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably Nathan Richman, Administrator v. General Motors Corporation (1971), Pipeliners Local Union No. 798 v. Ellerd (1974)

41 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions

220196719701980199020002010decided

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 Link v. Wabash Railroad · Ruiz v. District of Columbia Court of General Sessions · Alabama v. United States · Texas v. New Jersey · Meeker v. Rizley

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

  1. “'A dismissal, with prejudice, is a harsh sanction,'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “by reason of the fact that plaintiffs have exercised the extraordinary Writ of Attachment that the case would be tried on March 29, 1966, at Casper, Wyoming, or be dismissed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “. . . the judge has doubts about the existence of the claimed illness, the movant should be afforded an opportunity to substantiate his claim by proper proof.”
    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.