Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 384 F.2d 970 - Jesse B. Manbeck v. Gerald S. Ostrowski

Jesse B. Manbeck v. Gerald S. Ostrowski’s Empirical Analysis

384 F.2d 970 · 1967

Citation profile

58
cited by 58 later decisions
5
states following
June 2018
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 2 district · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 58 later decisions — most recently June 2018 · most notably McI Communications Corporation McI v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company (1983), Ollman v. Evans (1984)

31 federal appellate · 2 district · 15 state decisions

200196719701980199020002010decided

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 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Linn v. United Plant Guard Workers of America, Local 114 · Scripps-Howard Radio, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission · Fixa v. Heilberg · Afro-American Publishing Co. v. Jaffe

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. “absent perceptible irregularity in a process so largely discretionary, we are loath to disturb the result.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “overlooks important contrasts that admission of the defense could have made possible. With privilege ruled out, the range for evidentiary presentations was narrowed, and argument and instructions to the jury on the subject were scotched. Had the trial embraced privilege, not only could its scope have expanded in these respects, but new considerations would have emerged that might have persuaded a verdict different in both its compensatory and its punitive features. We think it clear, in the first place, that the factual picture before the jury could to some extent have been transformed. More evidence might have been forthcoming, and that which was received might have taken on a new look.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the fact that appellee was the union's attorney, rather than an officer or member, did not dissipate the immunity the privilege affords”
    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.