Queen v. TA Operating, LLC’s Empirical Analysis
734 F.3d 1081 · 2013
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291
Relies on Link v. Wabash Railroad · State of New Hampshire v. State of Maine · Eastman v. Union Pacific Railroad · Cannon-Stokes v. Potter · Arnold v. Gill (In Re Arnold)
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 17 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'clearly inconsistent' with its former position.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A court abuses its discretion only 'when it makes a clear error of judgment, exceeds the bounds of permissible choice, or when its decision is arbitrary, capricious or whimsical, or results in a manifestly unreasonable judgment.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“This perception is made even more apparent because [plaintiff] disclosed her . . . claim to her creditors and the bankruptcy court only when her failure to do so was revealed by [defendant's] summary judgment motion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. BIRR v. HAMPTON
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.