Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 681 F.2d 186 - Arnold IV v. Eastern Air Lines Inc

Arnold IV v. Eastern Air Lines Inc’s Empirical Analysis

1982

Citation profile

113
cited by 113 later decisions
5
states following
May 2023
most recently cited

50 federal appellate · 9 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably Mason v. Texaco, Inc. (1991), Johnson v. Celotex Corp. (1990)

50 federal appellate · 9 district · 5 state decisions

43019821990200020102020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2674 · 28 U.S.C. § 2676

Relies on Curtis Publishing Co. v. Butts · United States v. American Ry Express Co Southeastern Express Co · Grunenthal v. Long Island Rail Road · Donovan v. Penn Shipping Co. · New York Cent Co v. Johnson

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

  1. “the risk of inconsistent adjudications of common factual and legal issues, the burden on parties, witnesses and available judicial resources....”
    15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Hendrix v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc. · Carpenter
  2. “great deference [to] the superior vantage point of the trial judge...”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Clarence Barnwell v. Barber-Colman Company · Melissa E. Debenedetto, a Minor by Her Guardian Ad Litem, Frances Debenedetto v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, an Ohio Corporation, Deborah Samluk Drier v. The Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company, an Ohio Corporation
  3. “'untoward, inordinate, unreasonable[,] or outrageous.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Teague v. Be & K Communications Inc Be & K Teague · Roy William Teague, Mayce Lowery, D/B/A Golden Cable Co. v. B.E. & K. Communications, Inc., Media General Cable of Fairfax, Inc., B.E. & K. Construction Co., Roy William Teague, Mayce Lowery, D/B/A Golden Cable Co. v. B.E. & K. Communications, Inc., Media General Cable of Fairfax, Inc., B.E. & K. Construction Co.

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.