Alexander v. Curtis’s Empirical Analysis
808 F.2d 337 · 1987
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently October 2009
6 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005)
Relies on Gairola v. Commonwealth of Virginia Department of General Services · Ingram v. United States · Ford Motor Co. v. McDavid · Wheatley v. Gladden · 158 W. Va. 997 - Kesner v. Trenton
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'there can be but one conclusion as to the verdict that reasonable jurors could have reached.' " Alexander v. Curtis, 808 F.2d 337 , 338-39 (4th Cir.1987) (quoting Wheatley v. Gladden, 660 F.2d 1024 , 1027 (4th Cir.1981)). To avoid a directed verdict, a plaintiff must present sufficient evidence to establish a prima facie case. Alexander, 808 F.2d at 339. 4 This Court recently held that a "pattern of racketeering activity,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The question is not whether there is any evidence, but whether there is sufficient evidence upon which a jury could properly base a verdict in favor of the non-moving party.... A mere scintilla of evidence will not defeat the motion.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“'there can be but one conclusion as to the verdict that reasonable jurors could have reached.'”
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.