Tasby v. Peek’s Empirical Analysis
1975
Citation profile
2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985
Relies on Fanchon & Marco, Inc. v. Paramount Pictures, Inc. · Baker v. F & F Investment · Mulligan v. Schlachter · 277 F. Supp. 864 - Huey v. Barloga · Fletcher v. Hook
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * the inclusion of dates in the complaint showing the action to be untimely renders the complaint subject to dismissal upon motion, see Kincheloe v. Farmer, 214 F.2d 604 (7th Cir. 1954) cert. denied 348 U. S. 920 , 75 S.Ct. 306 , 99 L.Ed. 721 (1955); see generally 5 Wright and Miller Federal Practice and Procedure §§1226, 1357 (1969) * * *.” Wilburn v. Pepsi-Cola Bottling Co., 492 F.2d 1288, 1289 (8th Cir. 1974). 4”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Young v. Park
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.