Fitzgerald v. Larson’s Empirical Analysis
769 F.2d 160 · 1985
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2015 · most notably Mulligan v. Hazard Et Al. (1986), Bougher v. University of Pittsburgh (1989)
27 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Wilson v. Garcia · Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson · Michel v. United States · Cherek v. United States · Michael Meyers, Individually and as Representative of a Class v. Pennypack Woods Home Ownership Association and Marion A. Steinbronn
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1. Whether or not the newly announced decision established a new principal of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed; 2. Whether, in examining the purpose and effect of the decision, retroactive operation will further or retard its operation; 3. Whether retroactive application will produce inequitable results.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“in that it would be inequitable to give retrospective application to a shortening of the limitations period that altered established law upon which plaintiff could have reasonably relied.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“must be 'sufficiently clear that a plaintiff could have reasonably relied upon it in delaying suit, a criteria that [is] not met where the law was erratic and inconsistent.'”
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.