Mathers ex rel. J.S.J. v. Wright’s Empirical Analysis
636 F.3d 396 · 2011
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Village of Willowbrook v. Olech · Behrens v. Pelletier
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(b) Judgment on Multiple Claims or Involving Multiple Parties. When an action presents more than one claim for relief — whether as a claim, counterclaim, crossclaim, or third-party claim-r- or when multiple parties are involved, the court may direct entry of a final judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims or parties only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay. Otherwise, any order or other decision, however designated, that adjudicates fewer than all the claims or the rights and liabilities of fewer than all the parties does not end the action as to any of the claims or parties and may be revised at any time before the entry of a judgment adjudicating all the claims and all the parties’ rights and liabilities.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b), we may assume jurisdiction over an appeal from an interlocutory order at our discretion if the district court issuing the order is of the opinion that “such order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation[.]””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“An order dismissing some but not all claims is not final and not immediately appealable. See, e.g., Reinholdson v. Minnesota, 346 F.3d 847 (8th Cir.2003). Such an order may be appealed, however, if certain conditions enumerated in Rule 54(b) or 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (b) have been met.”
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.