Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 75 F.3d 230 - Cox v. Treadway

Cox v. Treadway’s Empirical Analysis

75 F.3d 230 · 1996

Citation profile

124
cited by 124 later decisions
3
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

41 federal appellate · 12 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 124 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably United States v. Frost (1997), Singletary v. Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (2001)

41 federal appellate · 12 district · 3 state decisions

5901996200020102020decided

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 Graham v. Connor · Schiavone v. Fortune · Tome v. United States · Barefoot v. Estelle · Hiatt v. Indiana State Student Assistance Commission

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

  1. “Sixth Circuit precedent clearly holds that new parties may not be added after the statute of limitations has run, and that such amendments do not satisfy the 'mistaken identity' requirement of Rule 15(c)(3)(B).”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A refusal to give a requested jury instruction is reversible error only if three conditions are satisfied. First, the omitted instruction must be a correct statement of the law. Second, the instruction must not be substantially covered by other delivered charges. Third, the failure to give the instruction must impair the requesting party’s theory of the case.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[s]ubstituting a named defendant for a 'John Doe' defendant is considered a change in parties, not a mere substitution of parties.”
    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.