Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 788 F.2d 247 - Cohen v. Virginia Electric & Power Co.

Cohen v. Virginia Electric & Power Co.’s Empirical Analysis

788 F.2d 247 · 1986

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
April 2024
most recently cited

31 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2024 · most notably Fogerty Fantasy Inc (1994), Rosciszewski v. Arete Associates, Inc. (1993)

31 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

29019861990200020102020decided

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 17 U.S.C. § 505 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976)

Relies on Swift & Co. v. United States · Basch v. Westinghouse Electric Corp. · 617 F. Supp. 619 - Cohen v. Virginia Electric & Power Co. · Dalton v. Employment Security Commission

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

  1. “Minor presented to this court [a writ-execution request] certifying [(a)] that to the best of his knowledge, information, and belief, formed after a [reasonable] inquiry... that the [request] was proper; and [(b)] that the letter requesting the writ of execution was not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass ....”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he consent order and judgment was endorsed by counsel from both sides, with the notation 'we ask for this,'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Cohen now attempts to escape the effect of the consent judgment by arguing that he was only consenting to the amount of fees, and that he was doing so because the court had already ordered that fees would be awarded. Nevertheless, the plain language of the consent order makes clear that the parties are acquiescing in the award of attorneys fees. There is no indication on the fact of the order that Cohen was reserving any rights to appeal the judgment.”
    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.