Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 823 F.2d 945 - Janikowski v. Bendix Corp.

Janikowski v. Bendix Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

823 F.2d 945 · 1987

Citation profile

117
cited by 117 later decisions
5
states following
August 2019
most recently cited

46 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably 14 Cal. 4th 479 - Romano v. Rockwell International, Inc. (1996), Interroyal Corporation, a Delaware Corporation v. Ralph H. Sponseller, and Superior Roll-Forming Company, Inc., an Ohio Corporation (1989)

46 federal appellate · 2 district · 6 state decisions

6201987199020002010decided

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) · 29 U.S.C. § 623 (§ 4 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Delaware State College v. Ricks · Raphan v. United States · Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Newman Oil Co. · United States v. Security Industrial Bank · Zerman v. Melton

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

  1. “at least some significant showing of prejudice to the opponent.”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “shall be freely given when justice so requires”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[t]he proper remedy for subjecting [an opponent] to duplicative discovery would be to require the amending party to bear a portion of the additional expense.”
    3 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.