Camacho v. Mancuso’s Empirical Analysis
53 F.3d 48 · 1995
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania v. Ben Cooper, Inc. · Clarke v. West Virginia Board of Regents · Gary R. Eitel v. William D. McCool · Mccall-Bey v. Franzen · Oswalt v. Scripto, Inc.
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 10 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Id. In this case, neither the presiding district court judge nor the clerk of court had any indication that defendants wanted to dismiss the case. Because the court must protect its interests as well as those of defendants, we must conclude that Rule 41(a)(1)(ii) requires tangible confirmation of the parties' agreement to dismiss. 14 A number of decisions support our position. In Morris v. City of Hobart, 39 F.3d 1105 (10th Cir.1994), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 115 S.Ct. 1960 , 131 L.Ed.2d 852 (1995), the court confronted whether a document styled”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Camacho v. Mancuso“which stated that: 4 Fernando and Luisa Camacho, Plaintiffs, voluntarily dissmiss [sic] without prejudice this action as to named Defendants, Montgomery County, State of Maryland; Detective Salvatore Mancuso; PO3 David Hardy and PO3 Leland Baughman. 5 (J.A. 44.) 1 Defendants never filed any record of their assent to the dismissal nor did the district court express its approval of the dismissal. It was not until September 1, 1992, that the clerk of the district court officially docketed the case as”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Camacho v. Mancuso“McCall-Bey v. Franzen, 777 F.2d 1178, 1185 (7th Cir.1985). Requiring that parties file a stipulation of dismissal with the court serves important goals of judicial and administrative efficiency. In cases where the stipulated dismissal is with prejudice, the entry of the date of the voluntary dismissal on the docket aids the application of res judicata should future litigation arise out of the same transaction. Id. at 1185 . Moreover,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Camacho v. Mancuso
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.