← 819 F.2d 1511 - Gerritsen v. De La Madrid Hurtado

Gerritsen v. De La Madrid Hurtado’s Empirical Analysis

819 F.2d 1511 · 1987

Citation profile

118

cited by 118 later decisions

cited 2 times by the Supreme Court

states following

August 2023

most recently cited

73 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 118 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2023 · most notably Sanchez-Llamas v. Oregon (2006), McGuckin v. Smith (1992)

73 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 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. § 1330 (§ 2 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 1351 · 28 U.S.C. § 1603 (§ 4 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1605 (§ 4 of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1653 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Scheuer v. Rhodes · Griffin v. Breckenridge · Truong Dinh Hung v. United States · District of Columbia v. Carter · Whitney v. Robertson

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

“If it appears that the district court intended the dismissal to dispose of the action, it may be considered final and appealable.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Baker v. Packebush · Turner v. United States Welfare Department
“provided they are within the limits permitted by international law; " or "are not prohibited by the laws and regulations of the receiving state....”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Gerritsen v. Consulado General De Mexico · Gerritsen v. Escobar Y Cordova
“Ordinarily an order dismissing the complaint rather than dismissing the action is not a final order and thus not appealable.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Carter v. G McConnel · McGhee v. City of Los Angeles Department of Water and Power

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.