Cunningham v. Hamilton County’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
289 federal appellate · 66 district · 33 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 740 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2025 · most notably Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter (2009), Robinson-Reeder v. American Council on Education (2009)
289 federal appellate · 66 district · 33 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedStarcher v. Correctional Medical Systems, Inc. (from Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · Catlin v. United States · Quackenbush California Insurance Commissioner v. Allstate Insurance Co
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 740 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.”
30 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“consistently eschewed a case-by-case approach to deciding whether an order is sufficiently collateral.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Kell v. Benzon · Galloway v. Clay“To permit an immediate appeal from such a sanctions order would undermine the very purposes of Rule 37(a), which was designed to protect courts and opposing parties from delaying or harassing tactics during the discovery process. Immediate appeals of such orders would undermine trial judges' discretion to structure a sanction in the most effective manner. They might choose not to sanction an attorney, despite abusive conduct, in order to avoid further delays in their proceedings. Not only would such an approach ignore the deference owed by appellate courts to trial judges charged with managing the discovery process, see Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 449 U.S., [368] at 374, 101 S.Ct. 669 [, 66 L.Ed.2d 571 ] [ (1981) ], it also could forestall resolution of the case as each new sanction would give rise to a new appeal. The result might well be the very sorts of piecemeal appeals and concomitant delays that the final judgment rule was designed to prevent.”
5 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.