Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 433 F.2d 1087 - Potter v. McCall

Potter v. McCall’s Empirical Analysis

433 F.2d 1087 · 1970

Citation profile

84
cited by 84 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
February 2007
most recently cited

64 federal appellate · 4 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 84 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2007 · most notably Denton v. Hernandez (1992), Franklin v. Murphy (1984)

64 federal appellate · 4 district ·

4201970198019902000decided

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. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2111 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Maryland ex rel. Levin v. United States · Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen v. Southern Railway Co. · Balistrieri v. United States · Lee Dodd v. Spokane County · National Trailer Convoy, Inc. v. United States

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

  1. “(1) process issued and served, (2) notice of any motion thereafter made by defendant or the court to dismiss the complaint and the grounds therefor, (3) an opportunity to at least submit a written memorandum in opposition to such motion, (4) in the event of dismissal, a statement of the grounds therefor, and (5) an opportunity to amend the complaint to overcome the deficiency unless it clearly appears from the complaint that the deficiency cannot be overcome by amendment.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he court cannot know, without hearing the parties, whether it may be possible for appellant to state a claim entitling him to relief, however strongly it may incline to the belief that he cannot.”
    3 later decisions 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.