Wolfe v. Perry’s Empirical Analysis
412 F.3d 707 · 2005
Citation profile
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Sensations, Inc. v. City of Grand Rapids (2008), Fox v. DeSoto (2007)
19 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Illinois v. Gates · Hensley v. Eckerhart · Heck v. Humphrey · Beck v. State of Ohio
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the issue in the subsequent litigation is identical to that resolved in [an] earlier litigation, (2) the issue was actually litigated and decided in the prior action, (3) the resolution of the issue was necessary and essential to a judgment on the merits in the prior litigation, (4) the party to be estopped was a party to the prior litigation (or in privity with such a party), and (5) the party to be estopped had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“by nearby residents alleging the refinery caused a nuisance to them by polluting their air[,]” and that “[i]n 2012, Marathon Petroleum Company LP[] was named as a defendant by the United States of America on behalf of the [Environmental Protection Agency] in [a lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan] for [ ] ongoing violations of environmental statutes and rules at its Detroit Refinery.” (Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 11a, 1 lg.) . Once up and running, the DHOUP provided the Detroit Refinery with the capacity to process tar sands. . Motions filed pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) are "interpreted in conjunction with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8[.]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“'does not accrue until the conviction is reversed or expunged, and therefore the statute of limitations does not begin to run until such an event occurs, if ever.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mobley v. O'Donnell
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.