Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 532 FSUPP2D 1118 - Cecala v. Newman

Cecala v. Newman’s Empirical Analysis

2007

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
1
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

5 district · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, 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 16 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “Under summary judgment practice, the moving party always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of “the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any,” which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “at the relevant times [Cecala] actually did the ultimate thing the unsound mind exception aims to prove she could not do: pursue litigation. She prosecuted, directly and later with counsel, the Nations Bank arbitration and litigation. She conferred with counsel, researched, and prepared litigation against Newman. She now asks the court to allow a jury to find that she could not do the very thing she was doing. This defiance of plain facts and plain meaning would make foolery of the unsound mind exception.”
    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.