Kaiser v. Cahn’s Empirical Analysis
510 F.2d 282 · 1974
Citation profile
51 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently July 2016 · most notably Singleton v. City of New York (1980), Leonhard v. United States (1980)
51 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 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. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson · Holmberg v. Armbrecht · International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp. · Garrett v. Co · Cope v. Anderson
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 117 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(i)n the absence of a federal statute of limitations federal courts borrow the state statute of limitations applicable to the most similar state cause of action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“. Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., 317 U.S. 239 , 243, 63 S.Ct. 246, 87 L.Ed. 239 (1942). 21 In sum, we do not feel that we are necessarily bound by the state's determination of when its statute of limitations is tolled where the question arises in a civil rights claim in the federal court. 22 510 F.2d at 287. 23 The majority distinguishes Mizell on the basis that appellant”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Meyer v. Frank
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.