Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 825 F.2d 1453 - Trujillo v. Goodman

Trujillo v. Goodman’s Empirical Analysis

825 F.2d 1453 · 1987

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
2
states following
March 2001
most recently cited

28 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently March 2001 · most notably Frank L. SPULAK, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. K MART CORPORATION, Defendant-Appellant (1990), Dixon v. Richer (1991)

28 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

270198719902000decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 242 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Parratt v. Taylor · Baker v. McCollan · Tennessee v. Garner · Ingraham v. Wright · Raphan v. United States

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

  1. “[t]he decision of a trial court to grant or deny a motion for a new trial will only be overturned on appeal upon a showing of a 'clear abuse of discretion,'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Judgment n.o.v. is proper only when the evidence so strongly supports an issue that reasonable minds could not differ.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[W]e may find error only when the evidence points but one way and is susceptible to no reasonable inferences sustaining the position of the party against whom the motion is made. While a scintilla of evidence is not enough, we must affirm if evidence was before the jury upon which it could properly find against the movant.”
    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.