Harris v. Steinem’s Empirical Analysis

571 F.2d 119 · 1978

Citation profile

103

cited by 103 later decisions

states following

February 2018

most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 13 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 103 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Ruiz v. Estelle (1982), Greyhound Exhibitgroup, Inc. v. E.L.U.L. Realty Corp. (1992)

27 federal appellate · 13 district · 9 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 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)

Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts · Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange · Foti v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

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

“'so logically connected [to GEX's claim against ELUL for fire damage] that considerations of judicial economy and fairness dictate[d] that all the issues be resolved in one lawsuit.'”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Timothy H. Johnson v. Vincent G. Swinney · Perry v. Beneficial Finance Co. of New York, Inc.
“premature prior to the determination of the main action.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Aeroquip Corp. v. Chunn · Four Seasons Solar Products Corp. v. Sun System Prefabricated Solar Greenhouses, Inc.
“a counterclaim which stems from the filing of the main action and subsequent alleged defamations is not a compulsory counterclaim covered by Rule 13(a).”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. John Pochiro and Karen Pochiro, Husband and Wife v. The Prudential Insurance Company of America · Painter v. Harvey

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.