Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 543 F.2d 48 - Munson v. Gilliam

Munson v. Gilliam’s Empirical Analysis

543 F.2d 48 · 1976

Citation profile

21
cited by 21 later decisions
1
states following
January 1997
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 21 later decisions — most recently January 1997

9 federal appellate · 3 state decisions

160197619801990decided

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 Younger v. Harris · Stone v. Powell · O'Shea v. Littleton · Steffel v. Thompson · Hicks v. Miranda

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

  1. “The District Court erroneously viewed the possible criminal prosecution of Gilliam, in and of itself, as constituting irreparable harm. That conclusion necessarily rests upon an assumption that Gilliam would not be given a reasonable and adequate opportunity to vindicate constitutional rights in an Arkansas state court. As above stated, the presumption is directly to the contrary. No evidence of record raises the smallest doubt of the capacity of the Arkansas state courts to adequately protect Gilliam’s constitutional rights. The mere prospect of facing criminal prosecution is not per se irreparable injury.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Where, as here, the injunction is designed to control a state law enforcement officer in the performance of his state-mandated duties, the burden on one seeking such injunction is heavy.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[t]he grant of a preliminary injunction requires a showing of a strong likelihood of eventual success on the part of the grantee and a showing of irreparable harm * * * .”
    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.