Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 77 F.3d 1170 - Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp.

Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

77 F.3d 1170 · 1996

Citation profile

142
cited by 142 later decisions
1
states following
February 2021
most recently cited

47 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 142 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably Farrow v. West (2003), Phillips Estates of Byrd v. General Motors Corporation (2002)

47 federal appellate · 8 district · 1 state decisions

5701996200020102020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 31 U.S.C. § 3729 (False Claims Act) · 31 U.S.C. § 3730 (False Claims Act) · 31 U.S.C. § 3732 (False Claims Act)

Relies on United States v. Olano · Thomas v. Arn · Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. · Hullum v. United States · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill

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

  1. “[assign] as error a defect in the magistrate judge's order.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[A] party who fails to file timely objections to a magistrate judge's [Rule 72(a)] nondispositive order with the district judge to whom the case is assigned forfeits its right to appellate review of that order.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “we have discretion to consider improperly presented claims of error where the appellee is not misled and the issue has been fully explored.” Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170 , 1176 (9th Cir.1996); Ellingson v. Burlington Northern, Inc., 653 F.2d 1327 , 1332 (9th Cir.1981). Because the Government addressed the”
    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.