Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 578 F.2d 513 - Frederick L. v. Thomas

Frederick L. v. Thomas’s Empirical Analysis

578 F.2d 513 · 1978

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
August 2017
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2017 · most notably Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. (1983), Congini by Congini v. PORTERSVILLE ETC. (1983)

24 federal appellate · 4 district · 5 state decisions

25019781980199020002010decided

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 Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co. · Hagans v. Lavine · Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. McLaughlin · Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein · Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. O'Connor

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

  1. “"(m)ost formulations of the standards for implying a private cause of action center on the presence or absence of a legislative intent to impose civil liability. In theory, at least, application of the negligence per se doctrine represents a judicial policy judgment independent of legislative intent with respect to the imposition of civil liability. Both, however, address the question of whether the policy behind the legislative enactment will be appropriately served by using it to impose and measure civil damage liability."”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the remaining question is whether the trial judge abused his discretion in weighing the advantages and disadvantages of abstention and deciding to invoke the Pullman doctrine.”
    3 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.