Wagner v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis
836 F.2d 566 · 1987
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 35 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England (2006), K-Mart Corporation v. Oriental Plaza Inc (1989)
26 federal appellate · 35 district · 3 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 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Elrod v. Burns · Alexander v. Gardner-Denver Co. · Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority · United States v. W. T. Grant Co.
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our Court of Appeals has stated that [t]o determine whether an injunction is appropriate the District Court should balance (1) the likelihood of the plaintiff’s success on the merits, (2) the threat of irreparable injury to the plaintiff in the absence of an injunction, (3) the possibility of substantial harm to other interested parties from a grant of injunctive relief, and (4) the interests of the public.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“District courts have broad discretion to evaluate the irreparability of alleged harm and to make determinations regarding the propriety of injunctive relief.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f court may eventually have jurisdiction of the substantive claim, the court's incidental equitable jurisdiction, despite the agency's primary jurisdiction, gives the court authority to impose a temporary restraint in order to preserve the status quo pending ripening of the claim for judicial review.”
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.