Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 580 F.2d 91 - Draper v. Airco, Inc.

Draper v. Airco, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

580 F.2d 91 · 1978

Citation profile

148
cited by 148 later decisions
5
states following
November 2020
most recently cited

65 federal appellate · 24 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 148 later decisions — most recently November 2020 · most notably Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp. (1993), Fineman v. Armstrong World Industries, Inc. (1992)

65 federal appellate · 24 district · 8 state decisions

670197819801990200020102020decided

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 Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co. · General Electric Co. v. International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers · Busik v. Levine · Butz v. Carter

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

  1. “there must be limits to pleas of pure passion and there must be restraints against blatant appeals to bias and prejudice.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) [ ] attempted to prejudice the jurors through repeated inappropriate references to the defendants’ wealth; (2) [] asserted his personal opinion of the justness of his client’s cause; (3) [ ] prejudi-cially referred to facts not in evidence; and (4) without provocation or basis in fact, [] made several prejudicial, vituperative and insulting references to opposing counsel.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[N]ot all improper remarks will engender sufficient prejudice to mandate the granting of a new trial. Our test is whether the improper assertions have made it 'reasonably probable' that the verdict was influenced by prejudicial statements.”
    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.