Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 667 F.2d 892 - Corriz v. Naranjo

Corriz v. Naranjo’s Empirical Analysis

667 F.2d 892 · 1981

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
May 2001
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2001 · most notably Memphis Community School District v. Stachura (1986), Lenard v. Argento (1983)

24 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

350198119902000decided

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 Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Monroe v. Pape · Imbler v. Pachtman · Carey v. Piphus

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

  1. “[n]o party may assign as error the giving or failure to give an instruction unless he objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[I]n cases involving constitutional rights, compensation "should not be approached in a niggardly spirit. It is in the public interest that there be a reasonably spacious approach to a fair compensatory award for denial or curtailment of the right...." Specifying such damages will always be difficult, but they must be at least "an amount which will assure (the plaintiff) that (personal) rights are not lightly to be disregarded and that they can be truly vindicated in the courts."”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “prevent a litigant from taking advantage of an error which could be rectified by the court if called to its attention by timely and specific objection.”
    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.