Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 759 F.2d 610 - South v. Rowe

South v. Rowe’s Empirical Analysis

759 F.2d 610 · 1985

Citation profile

76
cited by 76 later decisions
1
states following
October 2018
most recently cited

44 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably United States v. New York (1987), Holland v. New Jersey Department of Corrections (2001)

44 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

2701985199020002010decided

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 United States v. Swift & Co. · Cryts v. French · Williams v. Vukovich · Alliance to End Repression v. City of Chicago · Fox v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development

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

  1. “(1) The length of time the intervenor knew or should have known of his interest in this case, (2) the prejudice to the original party caused by the delay, (3) the resulting prejudice to the intervenor of the motion is denied, and (4) any unusual circumstances.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he parties could not agree to restrict the court's equitable powers to modify its judgment enforcing the consent decree, including the two-year limitation period, in light of `changed circumstances.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “lawful act.” Alger denied making that statement. 4 . The record does not reveal how many students recited the prayer. 5 . The School District suggests that we go further and review the district court's decision only for abuse of discretion. The School District makes this argument by relying on our footnote in South to the effect that “where the district judge has overseen the litigation generated by the decree and the underlying dispute for an extensive period of time, his interpretation of the decree will be reversed only for an abuse of discretion.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.