Flynt v. Lombardi’s Empirical Analysis
782 F.3d 963 · 2015
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Relies on Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg · Public Citizen v. Liggett Group, Inc. · Martindell v. International Telephone & Telegraph Corp. · Beckman Industries, Inc. v. International Insurance · Grove Fresh Distributors Incorporated v. Everfresh Juice Company Grove Fresh Distributors Incorporated
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 4 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A]lthough there is ample justification for the common fact or law requirement when the proposed intervenors seek to become a party to the action, [t]here is no reason to require such a strong nexus of fact or law when a party seeks to intervene only for the purpose of modifying a protective order.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“seeking to intervene in a case for the limited purpose of unsealing judicial records”
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.