Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 84 F.3d 652 - Chappelle v. Beacon Communications Corp.

Chappelle v. Beacon Communications Corp.’s Empirical Analysis

84 F.3d 652 · 1996

Citation profile

69
cited by 69 later decisions
7
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Denham v. City of New Carlisle (1999), Lazard Freres & Co. v. Protective Life Insurance (1997)

27 federal appellate · 8 state decisions

2801996200020102020decided

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

Relies on United States v. Procter & Gamble Co. · Honig v. Doe · Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Erie Lackawanna, Inc. · Birt v. Georgia · Fassett v. Delta Kappa Epsilon

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

  1. “a dismissal without prejudice [that] does not preclude another action on the same claims”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Unless otherwise specified in the order, a dismissal under [Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(2)] is without prejudice.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “If a litigant could refuse to proceed whenever a trial judge ruled against him, wait for the court to enter a dismissal [pursuant to Rule 41], and then obtain review of the judge’s interlocutory decision, the policy against piecemeal litigation and review would be severely weakened. This procedural technique would in effect provide a means to avoid the finality rule embodied in 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .”
    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.