Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 729 F.2d 991 - O'Bryan v. McKaskle

O'Bryan v. McKaskle’s Empirical Analysis

729 F.2d 991 · 1984

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
October 2017
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2017 · most notably Byrne v. Butler (1988), Selvage v. Lynaugh (1988)

19 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

2701984199020002010decided

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 21 U.S.C. § 301 (Animal Drug Amendments of 1968) · 21 U.S.C. § 337 (Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Sanders v. United States · Barefoot v. Estelle · Brown v. General Services Administration · Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Assn.

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

  1. “while the movant need not always show a probability of success on the merits, he must present a substantial case on the merits when a serious legal question is involved and show that the balance of the equities [i.e. the other three factors] weighs heavily in the favor of granting the stay.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) whether the movant has made a showing of likelihood of success on the merits, (2) whether the movant has made a showing of irreparable injury if the stay is not granted, (3) whether the granting of the stay would substantially harm the other parties, and (4) whether the granting of the stay would serve the public interest.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “that a certificate of probable cause requires petitioner to make a 'substantial showing of the denial of [a] federal right.'”
    2 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.