Lingenfelter v. Keystone Consolidated Industries, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
691 F.2d 339 · 1982
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 4 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently April 2017 · most notably Herman v. City of Chicago (1989), Farries v. Stanadyne/Chicago Division (1987)
25 federal appellate · 4 district ·
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 Costello v. United States · Galliher v. Cadwell · Triangle Improvement Council v. Ritchie · Pierce v. Georgia · Rutledge v. Florida
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Laches is principally a question of the inequity of permitting a claim to be enforced. It is unlike [a statute of] limitation[s], which is based merely on time. Rather, laches is based upon changes of conditions or relationships involved with the claim.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'unless it is so clearly wrong as to amount to an abuse of discretion.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Smith v. City of Chicago · White“[T]he Eighth Circuit recognized that, because laches is an equitable doctrine, a broad range of evidence is relevant to determine whether a defendant has been unfairly prejudiced. One type of prejudice, therefore, arises when a defendant adjusts its position in a manner that would not have occurred if the plaintiff had not delayed. We believe that this analysis supports the consideration of pure monetary losses as a factor in determining unfair prejudice. Laches applies to protect a defendant not only from diminished likelihood of success on the merits at trial, but also from unfairly accentuated damages occasioned only by a plaintiff’s unreasonable delays.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Zelazny v. Lyng
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.