Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 829 F.2d 326 - Apple v. Jewish Hospital & Medical Center

Apple v. Jewish Hospital & Medical Center’s Empirical Analysis

829 F.2d 326 · 1987

Citation profile

149
cited by 149 later decisions
2
states following
August 2021
most recently cited

53 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 149 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably In Re Drexel Burnham Lambert Incorporated (1988), Taylor v. Vermont Department of Education (2002)

53 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 state decisions

76019871990200020102020decided

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. § 144

Relies on Hullum v. United States · California v. Civil Aeronautics Board · Roberts v. Louisiana · Lewy v. Weinberger · United States v. Studley

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

  1. “at the earliest possible moment after obtaining knowledge of facts demonstrating the basis for such a claim.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(a) Any justice, judge, or magistrate [judge] of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned. (b) He shall also disqualify himself in the following circumstances: (1) Where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding....”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) the movant has participated in a substantial manner in trial or pre-trial proceedings; (2) granting the motion would represent a waste of judicial resources; (3) the motion was made after the entry of judgment; and (4) the movant can demonstrate good cause for delay.”
    5 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.