Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 707 F.2d 1176 - Cate v. Oldham

Cate v. Oldham’s Empirical Analysis

707 F.2d 1176 · 1983

Citation profile

203
cited by 203 later decisions
2
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

54 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 203 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Ned L. Siegel, Georgette Sosa Douglas v. Theresa Lepore, Charles E. Burton (2000), Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England (2006)

54 federal appellate · 5 district · 5 state decisions

72019831990200020102020decided

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 Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Younger v. Harris · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Ex Parte: Edward T Young

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

  1. “An injury is 'irreparable' only if it cannot be undone through monetary remedies.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “1. A substantial likelihood that the moving party ultimately will prevail on the merits of the claim. 2. Irreparable injury unless the injunction is issued. 3. The threatened injury to the movant outweighs whatever damage the proposed injunction may cause the opposing parties. 4. The injunction would not be adverse to the public interest.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “'the intangible nature or the benefits flowing from the exercise of those rights; and the fear that, if these rights are not jealously safeguarded, persons will be deterred, even if imperceptibly, from exercising those rights in the future.'”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.