Lesende v. Borrero’s Empirical Analysis
752 F.3d 324 · 2014
Citation profile
1 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Singleton v. Wulff · Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp. · Arizona v. California · Palmer v. Hoffman
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.
“failed to set forth any argument that the first jury's verdict on liability was against the clear weight of the evidence ,.. [t]he absence of such argument strongly indicates that the [defendant] did not intend to seek and never actually sought a new trial on liability from the District Court”); United States v. Healy, Criminal No. 1:CF-09-319, 2013 WL 1624310 , at (M.D. Pa. Apr. 15, 2013) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“objection was not clear and cogent ... was not sufficiently specific .., and failed to state the grounds upon which it rested”). . The statute applies in the instant action pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 601. See Fed. R. Evid. 601 (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] party who objects to an instruction ... must do so on the record, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds for the objection.”
1 later decision 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.