Arnold v. United States’s Empirical Analysis
816 F.2d 1306 · 1987
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Juarez v. Ameritech Mobile Communications, Inc. (1992), Northwest Environmental Defense Center v. Gordon (1988)
43 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 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. § 2680 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 704 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson · Butz v. Economou · Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc.
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 77 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If a party enters into a settlement agreement knowingly and voluntarily, the agreement is treated as a binding contract and the party is precluded from raising the underlying claims.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]f one party breaches a settlement, the other has the option of enforcing the terms of the settlement or rescinding the settlement and suing on the original claim.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Indeed, it is precisely because these wrongs are different that [Hinton]'s state-law claims are not precluded by [ERISA].”
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.