Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 65 F.3d 1314 - Thomson v. Ak Harmony

Thomson v. Ak Harmony’s Empirical Analysis

65 F.3d 1314 · 1995

Citation profile

49
cited by 49 later decisions
2
states following
January 2024
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 49 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably Ernst v. Rising (2005), Turker v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections (1998)

16 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions

2001995200020102020decided

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 Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Edelman v. Jordan · Hans v. State of Louisiana · Quern v. Jordan · Hutto v. Finney

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

  1. “[a] panel of this Court cannot overrule the decision of another panel. The prior decision remains controlling authority unless an inconsistent decision of the United States Supreme Court requires modification of the decision or this Court sitting en banc overrules the prior decision.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Except in the case of a civil action filed by the state, filing a civil action in the court of claims results in a complete waiver of any cause of action, based on the same acts or omissions, which the filing party has against any state officer or employee.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “However, contrary to the dissent, Conley does not alter the calculus where a party chooses to waive certain claims in order to gain access to the state's coffers via the Court of Claims; then, a plaintiff’s decision to file in that forum mandates dismissal”
    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.