Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 480 F.3d 140 - Guilbert v. Gardner

Guilbert v. Gardner’s Empirical Analysis

480 F.3d 140 · 2007

Citation profile

193
cited by 193 later decisions
3
states following
August 2023
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 42 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 193 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Beyer v. County of Nassau (2008), Kwan v. Andalex Group LLC (2013)

14 federal appellate · 42 district · 4 state decisions

1480200720102020decided

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. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1003 (§ 4 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1132 (§ 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)

Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Singleton v. Wulff · Murphy v. American Home Products Corp. · Clark-Fitzpatrick, Inc. v. Long Island Rail Road · Donovan v. Dillingham

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

  1. “A dispute about a 'genuine issue' exists for summary judgment purposes where the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could decide in the non-movant's favor.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “An acknowledgment or promise contained in a writing signed by the party to be charged thereby is the only competent evidence of a new or continuing contract whereby to take an action out of the operation of the provisions of limitations of time for commencing actions under the civil practice law and rules other than an action for the recovery of real property. This section does not alter the effect of a payment of principal or interest.”
    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.