Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 559 F.2d 894 - Michael Meyers, Individually and as Representative of a Class v. Pennypack Woods Home Ownership Association and Marion A. Steinbronn

Michael Meyers, Individually and as Representative of a Class v. Pennypack Woods Home Ownership Association and Marion A. Steinbronn’s Empirical Analysis

1977

Citation profile

301
cited by 301 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
10
states following
October 2022
most recently cited

102 federal appellate · 59 district · 19 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 301 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2022 · most notably Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co. (1987), Brown v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (1994)

102 federal appellate · 59 district · 19 state decisions — followed in 10 states

1130197719801990200020102020decided

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. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866)

Relies on Pierson v. Ray · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. · Powell v. McCormack · Starnes v. Penrod Drilling Co. · United Air Lines, Inc. v. Evans

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

  1. “(1) the prejudice or surprise in fact of the party against whom the excluded witnesses would have testified, (2) the ability of that party to cure the prejudice, (3) the extent to which waiver of the rule against calling unlisted witnesses would disrupt the orderly and efficient trial of the case or of other cases in the court, and (4) bad faith or willfulness in failing to comply with the court’s order.”
    60 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he exclusion of critical evidence is an 'extreme' sanction, not normally to be imposed absent a showing of willful deception or 'flagrant disregard' of a court order by the proponent of the evidence.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the limitation ... which would be applicable in the courts of the state in which the federal court is sitting had an action seeking similar relief been brought under state law.”
    5 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.