Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 832 F.2d 332 - Helton v. Clements

Helton v. Clements’s Empirical Analysis

832 F.2d 332 · 1987

Citation profile

77
cited by 77 later decisions
1
states following
September 2024
most recently cited

34 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 77 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Piotrowski v. City of Houston (2001), Piotrowski v. City of Houston (1995)

34 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions

40019871990200020102020decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866)

Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · Sherbert v. Verner · Delaware State College v. Ricks · California State Board of Equalization v. Western Marina Corp.

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

  1. “becomes aware that he has suffered an injury or has sufficient information to know that he has been injured.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “precluded her from knowing pertinent facts until January 1993, when Liles was deposed in relation to his pending libel suit against Williamson and others. From that deposition, Piotrowski alleges that she learned for the first time that the HPD took affirmative steps to suppress any information concerning their investigation and the HPD's prior knowledge of the Waring tip. 12 26 At trial, the City did not object to the form of the jury interrogatory that asked whether the plaintiff knew or should have known of the causal connection between her injuries and”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Under federal law, a cause of action accrues `when the plaintiff knows or has reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action.'”
    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.