Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 820 F.2d 628 - Freeman v. Petsock

Freeman v. Petsock’s Empirical Analysis

820 F.2d 628 · 1987

Citation profile

16
cited by 16 later decisions
February 2011
most recently cited

8 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 16 later decisions — most recently February 2011

8 federal appellate · 2 district ·

801987199020002010decided

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. § 1631 · 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Foman v. Davis · Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis · United Mine Workers of America v. Benedict Coal Corporation · Frank v. Arnold · Donovan v. Esso Shipping Co.

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

  1. “(4) ... the parties may further consent to appeal on the record to a judge of the district court in the same manner as on an appeal from a judgment of the district court to a court of appeals____ The district court may affirm, reverse, modify, or remand the magistrate’s judgment. (5) Cases in the district courts ... may be reviewed by the appropriate United States court of appeals upon petition for leave to appeal by a party stating specific objections to the judgment. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to be a limitation on any party’s right to seek review by the Supreme Court of the United States.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Whenever ... an appeal ... is noticed for or filed with ... a court and that court finds that there is a want of jurisdiction, the court shall, if it is in the interest of justice, transfer such ... appeal to any other such court in which the action or appeal could have been brought at the time it was filed or noticed, and the ... appeal shall proceed as if it had been filed in ... the court to which it is transferred on the date upon which it was actually filed in ... the court from which it is transferred.”
    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.