Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 740 F.2d 86 - Merchant v. Ruhle

Merchant v. Ruhle’s Empirical Analysis

740 F.2d 86 · 1984

Citation profile

90
cited by 90 later decisions
3
states following
July 2025
most recently cited

54 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably Anderson v. Cryovac, Inc. (1988), Reilly v. United States (1988)

54 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions

35019841990200020102020decided

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

Relies on Dunn v. United States · Gallick v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad · Atlantic & Gulf Stevedores, Inc. v. Ellerman Lines, Ltd. · Fairmount Glass Works v. Cub Fork Coal Co. · Harris v. Rivera

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

  1. “would place a premium on agreeable acquiescence to perceivable error as a weapon of appellate advocacy.”
    16 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “to consider inconsistency in civil jury verdicts a basis for new trials.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “When the answers are inconsistent with each other and one or more is likewise inconsistent with the general verdict, judgment shall not be entered, but the court shall return the jury for further consideration of its answers and verdict or shall order a new trial.”
    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.