Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 636 F.2d 63 - Covington v. Allsbrook

Covington v. Allsbrook’s Empirical Analysis

636 F.2d 63 · 1980

Citation profile

93
cited by 93 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
September 2001
most recently cited

55 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 93 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2001 · most notably Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co. (1988), Ruiz Rivera v. Riley (2000)

55 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

490198019902000decided

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

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Santoni v. United States · Environmental Protection Agency v. Brown · Oxendine v. Williams · McKinney v. De Bord

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

  1. “The only means of determining which litigants are interested in pursuing an appeal is by requiring each pro se party to personally sign the notice of appeal. Imposition of this requirement does not unduly burden the prospective appellant and acts to protect the rights and interests of all parties to the litigation. It is the only practical way to specify the party or parties taking the appeal, as required by Rule 3(c) [Fed.R.App.P.].”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he term 'et al' does not inform any other party or any court as to which of the plaintiffs desire to appeal in this case. This is more than a clerical error.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “actual signing by pro se parties desiring to join in an appeal”
    2 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.