Eilrich v. Remas’s Empirical Analysis
839 F.2d 630 · 1988
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 6 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably 24 Cal. 4th 61 - Johnson v. City of Loma Linda (2000), Foster v. Hallco Manufacturing Co. (1991)
33 federal appellate · 6 district · 10 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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 1738 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Connick v. Myers · Marrese v. American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co. · University of Tennessee v. Elliott · 32 Cal. 3d 468 - People v. Sims
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`If an adequate opportunity for review is available, a losing party cannot obstruct the preclusive use of the state administrative decision simply by foregoing [the] right to appeal.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In the present case, Eilrich was afforded a 14-day proceeding resembling a trial, documented by an eleven-volume transcript____ [B]oth sides were entitled to call, examine and cross-examine witnesses under oath or affirmation. At the hearing, both parties were represented by counsel, twenty-one sworn witnesses testified, subpoenas were issued, and both parties presented oral argument and written memoranda. Both sides briefed the first amendment issue, the hearing officer considered these arguments and applied the appropri ate legal standards to the facts surrounding Eilrieh’s statements and discharge. In addition, because the hearing officer applied an established rule to specific existing facts rather than establishing a rule of law applicable to future cases, he acted in a judicial capacity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The court in Mack declined to give an unreviewed administrative hearing preclusive effect primarily because the plaintiff had had no opportunity to litigate his age discrimination claim, applying the Utah Construction standard. The nature of the unemployment compensation hearing had denied him the opportunity to litigate his claim and it was unclear if any evidence at all on the issue of age discrimination had been presented. The facts of this case are clearly distinguishable from those in Mack , where we could not determine from the record whether any evidence on the plaintiffs age discrimination claim had even been presented.”
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.