Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 769 F.2d 77 - Gargiulo v. Delsole

Gargiulo v. Delsole’s Empirical Analysis

769 F.2d 77 · 1985

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
2
states following
September 2020
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably Royal American Managers, Inc. v. IRC Holding Corp. (1989), Lovelace v. Dall (1987)

22 federal appellate · 1 district · 7 state decisions

22019851990200020102020decided

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 Eisenstadt v. Baker · Aetna Ins Co Kennedy Bogash Springfield Fire Marine Ins Co v. Same Liverpool & London & Globe Ins Co Limited · Sergio Degioia v. United States Lines Company, and Third-Party v. American Stevedores, Inc., and Imparato Stevedoring Corp., Third-Party · Annette Heyman, Individually v. Robert S. Kline · Rosen v. Dick

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

  1. “[A] party's acquiescence to the district court's maintenance of a bench trial, without more, is insufficient to establish a withdrawal of a jury demand.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “an oral stipulation made in open court and entered in the record.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “While defendants' demand, made on the last page of their answer, was not in the preferred style, and its obscure placement perhaps caused the clerk of the court to overlook it, we nonetheless conclude that it complied with Rule 38(b).”
    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.