Mills v. Cooter’s Empirical Analysis
1994
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 7 district · 20 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently April 2015 · most notably 938 F. Supp. 46 - Williams v. Callaghan (1996), Hendry v. Pelland (1996)
2 federal appellate · 7 district · 20 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 Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. · Eisenstadt v. Baker · Yee v. City of Escondido · The Florida Star v. Bjf · Geiserman v. MacDonald
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Ojnce a ... claim is properly presented, a party can make any argument in support of that claim; parties are not limited to the precise arguments they made below.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“a causal relationship between the violation and the harm complained of,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“An attorney is under no obligation ... to maintain a position which the attorney does not believe that he can honorably defend, even if that position is urged upon him by the client.”). The B & G Defendants move to strike this testimony as an improper expert opinion, see B & G Defs.' Mot. to Strike, ECF No. 36, at 3, but the Court denies this aspect of their motion as moot because Amato's testimony, even if accepted, is insufficient to sustain Mrs. Rocha’s malpractice claim. 21 . See Amato Dep. at 170:8-12 (”
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.