Stringfellow v. Concerned Neighbors in Action’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
390 federal appellate · 32 district · 63 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 791 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2025 · most notably Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc. (1994), Retired Chicago Police Association Carepac v. City of Chicago M
390 federal appellate · 32 district · 63 state decisions — followed in 19 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedUnited States of America v. Stringfellow (from Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 33 U.S.C. § 1365 · 42 U.S.C. § 300J · 42 U.S.C. § 6972
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · Catlin v. United States · Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal. · Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord
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 791 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An order granting intervention as of right is appropriate if (1) the applicant’s motion is timely; (2) the applicant has asserted an interest relating to the property or transaction which is the subject of the action; (3) the applicant is so situated that without intervention the disposition may, as a practical matter, impair or impede its ability to protect that interest; and (4) the applicant’s interest is not adequately represented by the existing parties.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[to] qualify as [an appealable] collateral order, a decision must: (i) 'conclusively determine the disputed question'; (ii) 'resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action'; and (iii) 'be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.'”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence,' and that the order can be 'effectually challenged' only by immediate appeal.”
8 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.