Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 6 F.3d 307 - James v. Frame

James v. Frame’s Empirical Analysis

6 F.3d 307 · 1993

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
1
states following
August 2015
most recently cited

4 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably 217 Wis. 2d 378 - Apex Electronics Corp. v. Gee (1998), 290 F. Supp. 2d 1340 - DirecTV, Inc. v. Griffin (2003)

4 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

140199320002010decided

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 Pauley v. Beth-Energy Mines, Inc. · Fleet Factors Corp. v. United States · Flaks v. Koegel · Action Sa v. Marc Rich & Co Inc · HMG Property Investors, Inc. v. Parque Industrial Rio Canas, Inc.

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

  1. “If, in order to enable the court to enter judgment or to carry it into effect, it is necessary to take an account or to determine the amount of damages or to establish the truth of any averment by evidence or to make an investigation of any other matter, the court may conduct such hearings or order such references as it deems necessary and proper....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “where the amount claimed is a liquidated sum or one capable of mathematical calculation.”
    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.