Smith v. Mulvaney’s Empirical Analysis
827 F.2d 558 · 1987
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 60 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2024 · most notably Musick, Peeler & Garrett v. Employers Ins. of Wausau (1993), United States v. Rubio-Villareal (1992)
31 federal appellate · 5 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 12 U.S.C. § 21 · 15 U.S.C. § 77K (§ 11 of the Securities Act of 1933) · 15 U.S.C. § 78I (§ 9 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 28 U.S.C. § 2106
Relies on Herman & MacLean v. Huddleston · Cruz v. Hauck · Parham v. Cortese · Smith v. Harmsen · Dames & Moore v. Regan
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 60 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Congress ... likely intended the phrase 'as in cases of contract’ to express a departure from the traditional no contribution rule of tort law”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) whether the original judge would reasonably be expected upon remand to have substantial difficulty in putting out of his or her mind previously-expressed views or findings determined to be erroneous or based on evidence that must be rejected, (2) whether reassignment is advisable to preserve the appearance of justice, and (3) whether reassignment would entail waste and duplication out of proportion to any gain in preserving the appearance of fairness.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'is an equitable doctrine ... [t]o apportion damages without regard to fault reduces, to an extent, the equity which the doctrine was intended to provide.'”
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.