Starr v. Pearle Vision, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
54 F.3d 1548 · 1995
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 19 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Aramburu v. Boeing Co. (1997), Young v. Dillon Companies, Inc. (2006)
20 federal appellate · 19 district · 4 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1441
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Rosenberg v. Comerica Bank · Austin Products Co. v. Workers' Compensation Insurers Rating Association of Minnesota · Applied Genetics International, Inc. v. First Affiliated Securities, 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Rule 56 precludes the use of inadmissible hearsay testimony in depositions in support of, or in opposition to, summary judgment.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“When viewed in the context of its procedural posture, however, Snider does not dictate judgment in favor of Starr. In Snider , the district court submitted the plaintiffs intentional infliction of emotional distress claim to the jury, which ruled in her favor. Defendants appealed, following an adverse jury verdict, claiming there was insufficient evidence at trial to have submitted that issue to the jury. We reviewed that ruling under an abuse of discretion standard. The evidence there revealed a sustained, persistent and orchestrated campaign to embarrass and humiliate the plaintiff which is quite unlike the episodic nature of the events involving Jacqui Starr.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) that the tortfeasor acted intentionally or recklessly; (2) that the tortfeasor’s conduct was extreme and outrageous; (3) that plaintiff actually experienced emotional distress; and (4) that the emotional distress was severe.”
2 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.