Grogan v. Garner’s Empirical Analysis
806 F.2d 829 · 1986
Citation profile
57 federal appellate · 3 district · 14 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 111 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2016 · most notably Grogan v. Garner (1991), Grubb v. Federal Deposit Insurance (1989)
57 federal appellate · 3 district · 14 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 78B (§ 2 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 1875 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Desist v. United States · Scalza v. United States · Gateway Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers · Randall v. Loftsgaarden
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 111 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The trial court has broad discretion to instruct the jury in the form and language it considers a fair and adequate presentation of [state] law.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“greatest amount recoverable under any single theory pled, with actual damages plus prejudgment interest [on the federal claim] representing one single amount and actual damages plus punitive damages [on the pendent claim] representing the other single amount.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“and eliminates any likelihood that the jury would consider it to include an element of intentional conduct. Instruction 24 contains a detailed description of actual and imputed knowledge as related to foreseeability. We believe that the instructions as a whole fairly and adequately presented the applicable law on cause and foreseeability and were not misleading or confusing to the jury. 26 However, this does not mean that we approve of the use of the term”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.