Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 383 F.3d 761 - Davis v. U.S. Bancorp

Davis v. U.S. Bancorp’s Empirical Analysis

383 F.3d 761 · 2004

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
November 2023
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 21 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably United States v. Brewer (2010), Wegener v. Johnson (2008)

21 federal appellate · 21 district ·

290200420102020decided

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 Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp · Bennett v. Spear · Jaurequi v. Carter Manufacturing Co. · Florenzano v. Olson

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.

  1. “The class of plaintiffs under the private attorney general statute would be limitless if we assumed that one individual's negative experience with a company was necessarily duplicated for every other individual and on that basis treated personal claims as benefitting the public.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the interest sought to be protected by the [plaintiff] is arguably within the zone of interests to be protected or regulated by the statute.” Davis v. U.S. Bancorp, 383 F.3d 761, 767-68 (8th Cir.2004). Regardless, unlike Article III standing, prudential standing”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “We will reverse only if the district court's ruling was based on 'an erroneous view of the law or a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence' and affirmance would result in 'fundamental unfairness.'”
    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.