Burrell v. Armijo’s Empirical Analysis
603 F.3d 825 · 2010
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Farrar v. Hobby · Larson v. Domestic & Foreign Commerce Corp. · Hurd v. American Hoist & Derrick Co. · United States v. Kunzman
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law only if all of the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, reveals no legally sufficient evidentiary basis to find for the non-moving party.”). . Rule 702 was amended effective December 1, 2011,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he district court granted the defendants’ motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f) and struck several paragraphs of the complaint. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f) (authorizing a court to strike any portion of a pleading that is “redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous”). On appeal, the Bur-rells argue that the district court erred in granting the motion to strike because the stricken paragraphs are related to their claims. We have thoroughly reviewed the portion of the complaint at issue and conclude that none of it is relevant to the question of sovereign immunity, the resolution of which moots the parties’ appellate arguments on the § 1981 and § 1985 claims. In addition, the Burrells do not argue that the order prejudiced them in their presentation of evidence at trial. Accordingly, even if the court erred in striking portions of the complaint — which we do not suggest — any error was harmless.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Lane v. Page
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.