Ford v. Alfaro’s Empirical Analysis
785 F.2d 835 · 1986
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Davis v. City and County San Francisco (1992), Official Airline Guides, Inc. v. Goss (1993)
36 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 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 28 U.S.C. § 1961 · 29 U.S.C. § 1140 (§ 510 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 158 (§ 8 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 201 (American Samoa Labor Standards Amendments of 1956) · 29 U.S.C. § 203 · 29 U.S.C. § 215 · 29 U.S.C. § 216 · 29 U.S.C. § 621 (§ 2 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967)
Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Link v. Wabash Railroad · Mitchell v. Robert DeMario Jewelry, Inc. · Lojek v. Thomas · Miranda v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co.
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) Interest shall be allowed on any money judgment in a civil case recovered in a district court.... Such interest shall be calculated from the date of the entry of the judgment, at a rate equal to the weekly average 1-year constant maturity Treasury yield, as published by the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, for the calendar week preceding the date of the judgment. ... (b) Interest shall be computed daily to the date of payment except as provided in section 2516(b) of this title and section 1304(b) of title 31, and shall be compounded annually.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“without first giving notice of its intent to [impose Rule 16(f) sanctions] and without affording an opportunity for a hearing.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“) contends that the district court abused its discretion in imposing a sanction against him for failing to file a pretrial statement and to appear at a scheduled pretrial conference. As a sanction, the district court adopted the Secretary of Labor's pretrial statement as the court's pretrial order. Alfaro argues that the district court's order was issued without affording Alfaro proper notice or opportunity to be heard and that, because of the sanction, he was unable to present a defense due to the preclusive nature of the order. 3 On cross-appeal, the Secretary of Labor (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ford v. Alfaro
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.