Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 729 F.2d 1114 - Wolfolk v. Rivera

Wolfolk v. Rivera’s Empirical Analysis

729 F.2d 1114 · 1984

Citation profile

159
cited by 159 later decisions
3
states following
May 2011
most recently cited

59 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 159 later decisions — most recently May 2011 · most notably 615 F. Supp. 828 - Northern Trust Bank/O'hare, N.A. v. Inryco, Inc. (1985), Deppe v. Tripp (1988)

59 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions

9401984199020002010decided

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. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Zipes v. Trans World Airlines, Inc. · Reeb v. Economic Opportunity Atlanta, Inc. · Reichenberger v. Pritchard

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

  1. “appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(4) The agency shall extend the time limits in this section: (i) when the complainant shows that he was not notified of the time limits and was not otherwise aware of them, or that he was prevented by circumstances beyond his control from submitting the matter within the time limits; or (ii) for other reasons considered sufficient by the agency.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “'There is no constitutional or statutory right for an indigent to have counsel appointed in a civil case. It of course follows there is no constitutional or statutory right to effective assistance of counsel in a civil case.'”
    3 later decisions 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.