Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 693 F.2d 563 - Stickney v. Smith

Stickney v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis

693 F.2d 563 · 1982

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
2
states following
August 2008
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions — most recently August 2008

3 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

70198219902000decided

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. § 1292

Relies on Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Electric Manufacturing Co. · 102 S. Ct. 969 - United States v. Security Industrial Bank · United States v. Security Industrial Bank · 276 So. 2d 309 - Jagers v. Royal Indemnity Company · 339 So. 2d 731 - Seaton v. Kelly

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

  1. “(a) The needs of the interstate system; (b) The relevant policies of the forum; (c) The relevant policies of other interested states and the relevant interests of those states in the determination of the particular issue; (d) The protection of justified expectations; (e) The basic policies underlying the particular field of law; (f) Certainty, predictability and uniformity of result; and (g) Ease in the determination and application of the law to be applied.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[i]t was reasonable to anticipate that he would be using Louisiana's highways for an extended period.”
    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.