Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 665 F.2d 443 - Tokarcik v. Forest Hills School District

Tokarcik v. Forest Hills School District’s Empirical Analysis

665 F.2d 443 · 1981

Citation profile

151
cited by 151 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
December 2021
most recently cited

75 federal appellate · 15 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 151 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2021 · most notably Irving Independent School District v. Tatro (1984), Ridgewood Board of Education v. N.E. (1999)

75 federal appellate · 15 district · 3 state decisions

84019811990200020102020decided

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 Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc. · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. · Maine v. Thiboutot · Holmberg v. Armbrecht · Southeastern Community College v. Davis

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

  1. “the court shall receive the records of the administrative proceedings, shall hear additional evidence at the request of a party, and basing its decision on the preponderance of the evidence, shall grant such relief as the court determines appropriate.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Notwithstanding the Carson qualification that interlocutory orders pose 'serious perhaps irreparable consequences,' the appealability of a routine interlocutory injunctive order remains unquestioned.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “provision is premised on the rationale that preservation of the status quo, rather than an inappropriate reaction to an emergent situation, provides for the best interests of the child. The”
    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.