Hubert Y. Linn v. Roy M. Garcia and Milo Mally’s Empirical Analysis
531 F.2d 855 · 1976
Citation profile
53 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently April 2013 · most notably Jaegly v. Couch (2006), Putman v. Gerloff (1981)
53 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 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
Relies on Carroll v. United States · Brinegar v. United States · Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Pierson v. Ray · Time, Inc. v. Bon Air Hotel, 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 70 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]hen a peace officer has probable cause to believe that a person is committing . . . [an] offense, he is justified in arresting that person, and it is immaterial that the officer may have thought, without probable cause, that the defendant was committing or had committed other offenses as well.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“. . The actual question presented is whether the district court properly denied the defendant’s motion for a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, pursuant to Rule 50(b), Fed.R.Civ.P. This motion cannot be granted, of course, unless as a matter of law the opposing party failed to make a case and a verdict in the movant’s favor should have been directed. (Citations omitted.) We must now view the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the jury’s findings and must give the prevailing party the benefit of every reasonable inference which may be drawn from the evidence. (Citations omitted.) Judgment notwithstanding the verdict must be granted if the evidence, so viewed, was such that reasonable men could not differ as to the conclusion that the plaintiff’s proof had failed to meet its burden as to an essential element of the cause of action. (Citations omitted.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the facts are not disputed or are susceptible to only one reasonable inference, the question is one of law for the court.”
1 later decision 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.