Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 596 F.2d 678 - Harris v. Wilters

Harris v. Wilters’s Empirical Analysis

596 F.2d 678 · 1979

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
September 2012
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently September 2012

4 federal appellate · 1 district ·

9019791980199020002010decided

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 Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · The Canal Authority of the State of Florida v. Howard H. Callaway, Secretary of the United States Army, the Cross-Florida Canal Association v. Howard H. Callaway, Secretary of the United States Army, Eleanor H. Miller v. Avery S. Fullerton, Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Corps of Engineers of the United States Army, J. G. Perko v. The Canal Authority of the State of Florida, Etc. · Exhibitors Poster Exchange, Inc. v. National Screen Service Corporation, No. 30886 Summary Calendar. Rule 18, 5 Cir. See Isbell Enterprises, Inc v. Citizens Casualty Co. Of New York, 5 Cir. 1970, 431 F.2d 409, Part I · Gibson v. Jackson · Harris v. State

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

  1. “Only in rare instances is the issuance of a mandatory preliminary injunction proper.... The denial of such a remedy will not be reversed on appeal except for an abuse of discretion.”
    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.