Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 538 F.3d 667 - Kunz v. DeFelice

Kunz v. DeFelice’s Empirical Analysis

538 F.3d 667 · 2008

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
1
states following
January 2025
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Gayton v. McCoy (2010), Judge v. Quinn (2010)

29 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

380200820102020decided

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

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. · Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al. v. Patrick Carmichael, Etc., et al. · General Electric Co. v. Joiner · BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore

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

  1. “Evidence that a witness has used illegal drugs may be probative of the witness’ possible inability to recollect and relate .... This evidence may be admitted where the memory or mental capacity of a witness is legitimately at issue.... At the same time, however, there is considerable danger that evidence that a witness has used illegal drugs may so prejudice the jury that it will excessively discount the witness’ testimony.... A court must, therefore, be chary in admitting such evidence when it is offered for the sole purpose of making a general character attack.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “to show cause why they should not be fined or otherwise disciplined”
    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.