Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 724 F.2d 80 - Flittie v. Erickson

Flittie v. Erickson’s Empirical Analysis

724 F.2d 80 · 1983

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
May 2008
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently May 2008

10 federal appellate · 1 district ·

80198319902000decided

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 Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co. · Weinstein v. Bradford · Preiser v. Newkirk · Backus v. Baptist Medical Center

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

  1. “capable of repetition, yet evading review”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Article III of the United States Constitution restricts the decision-making power of the federal judiciary to cases involving “a case or controversy.” A federal court must determine that “there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality” to warrant granting relief. The controversy must exist during all phases of the litigation. Cases involving substantial controversies may become moot on appeal by the occurrence of subsequent events.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “This exception is applicable (1) when the relatively short term nature of the challenged action prevents its full litigation prior to its cessation or expiration; and (2) when there exists a reasonable expectation that the same complaining party will again be subject to the same action.”
    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.