James’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
18 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 171 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably America Online, Inc. v. Anonymous Publicly Traded Co. (2001), Landrum v. CHIPPENHAM AND JOHNSTON-WILLIS (2011)
18 district · 11 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
Relies on Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. · Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · Will v. Calvert Fire Insurance
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 171 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) whether the justification asserted by the requesting party is merely to avoid the annoyance and criticism that may attend any litigation or is to preserve privacy in a matter of a sensitive and highly personal nature; (2) whether identification poses a risk of retaliatory physical or mental harm to the requesting party or even more critically, to innocent non-parties; (3) the ages of the persons whose privacy interests are sought to be protected; (4) whether the action is against a governmental or private party; and (5) the risk of unfairness to the opposing party from allowing an action against it to proceed anonymously.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a judicial duty to inquire into the circumstances of particular cases to determine whether the dispensation is warranted.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“, after taking all relevant factors into consideration: 19 ... Federal courts traditionally have recognized that in some cases the general presumption of open trials--including identification of parties and witnesses by their real names--should yield in deference to sufficiently pressing needs for party or witness anonymity. Whether the circumstances warrant anonymity in particular cases is committed in the first instance to trial court discretion, which is then subject to appellate review only for”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Mm v. W Zavaras
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.