Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 523 F.2d 1271 - Korioth v. Briscoe

Korioth v. Briscoe’s Empirical Analysis

523 F.2d 1271 · 1975

Citation profile

82
cited by 82 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

45 federal appellate · 7 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 82 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2017 · most notably New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. United Gas Pipe Line Co. (1984), Chiles v. Thornburgh (1989)

45 federal appellate · 7 district · 12 state decisions — followed in 10 states

40019751980199020002010decided

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

Relies on Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Baker v. Carr · Association of Data Processing Service Organizations, Inc. v. Camp · Flast v. Cohen · Sierra Club v. Morton

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

  1. “whether the trial court committed a clear abuse of discretion in denying the motion.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[c]ases are to be decided on the narrowest legal grounds available, and relief is to be tailored carefully to the nature of the dispute before the court.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Rule 24(b) grants the district court discretionary power to permit intervention if the motion is timely, and if the ‘applicant’s claim or defense and the main action have a question of law or fact in common.’ Fed.R.Civ.P. 24(b)(2). Rule 24(b)(2) also provides that ‘[i]n exercising its discretion the court shall consider whether the intervention will unduly delay or prejudice the adjudication of the rights of the original parties.’ We therefore review a denial of a Rule 24(b) motion only for an abuse of discretion.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.