Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 676 F.2d 539 - Cioffe v. Morris

Cioffe v. Morris’s Empirical Analysis

676 F.2d 539 · 1982

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
3
states following
November 2023
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably Rodriguez v. Doral Mortgage Corp. (1995), Conair Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, Local 222, International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Afl-Cio, Intervenor (1983)

27 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 state decisions

24019821990200020102020decided

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 Gernat v. Gernat · International Harvester Credit Corporation and International Harvester Company v. East Coast Truck and R. v. Sales, Inc., East Coast Truck and R. v. Sales, Inc. v. International Harvester Company · Stevenson Co Inc v. Bags of Flour Adm Milling Co Inc · Monod v. Futura, Inc.

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

  1. “[T]he introduction of evidence relevant to an issue already in the case may not be used to show consent to trial of a new issue absent a clear indication that the party who introduced the evidence was attempting to raise a new issue.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[A] claim is unliquidated when the amount of damages cannot be computed except on conflicting evidence, inferences and interpretations.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[I]mplied consent under Rule 15(b) will not be found if the [opposing party] will be prejudiced, that is, if the [opposing party] had no notice of the new issue, if [he] could have offered additional evidence in defense, or if the [opposing party] in some other way was denied a fair opportunity to defend.”
    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.