Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 546 F.3d 557 - Gill v. Maciejewski

Gill v. Maciejewski’s Empirical Analysis

546 F.3d 557 · 2008

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
September 2024
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 4 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently September 2024

7 federal appellate · 4 district ·

120200820102020decided

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)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Graham v. Connor · Farrar v. Hobby · Memphis Community School District v. Stachura · National Labor Relations Board v. Gullett Gin Co.

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

  1. “is possessed with broad discretion in its evidentiary rulings made at trial, and we will reverse only if they amount to “a clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion.” Lovett ex rel. Lovett v. Union Pac. R.R. Co., 201 F.3d 1074, 1081 (8th Cir.2000). To warrant reversal, an error “must affect a substantial right of the objecting party, and the burden of showing prejudice rests on that party.” ACTONet, Ltd. v. Allou Health & Beauty Care, 219 F.3d 836, 848 (8th Cir.2000) (quoting [Crane v.] Crest Tankers, Inc., 47 F.3d 292, 296 (8th Cir.1995)). “Only when the evidence excluded is of such a critical nature that there is ‘no reasonable assurance, that the jury would have reached the same conclusion had the evidence been admitted’ has a district court so abused its discretion.” Stephens v. Rheem Mfg. Co., 220 F.3d 882, 885 (8th Cir.2000) (quoting Adams v. Fuqua Indus., Inc., 820 F.2d 271, 273 (8th Cir.1987)).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A district court is possessed with broad discretion in its evidentiary rulings made at trial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “unwarranted liberties with the context of the statement”
    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.