McKibben v. Chubb’s Empirical Analysis
840 F.2d 1525 · 1988
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 18 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 93 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Yvonne L. v. New Mexico Department of Human Services (1992), Evans v. Pearson Enterprises, Inc. (2006)
31 federal appellate · 18 district · 6 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
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Curtiss-Wright Corporation v. General Electric Company · Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. MacKey · Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Newman Oil Co. · Markham v. Allen
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 93 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“`[t]he standard for determining whether federal jurisdiction may be exercised is whether under state law the dispute would be cognizable only by the probate court'”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Our standard of review of a grant of summary judgment is well settled. “When reviewing a grant of summary judgment, this court must examine the record to determine whether any genuine issue of material fact pertinent to the ruling remains and, if not, whether the substantive law was correctly applied. In determining whether any genuine issues of material fact exist, the record must be construed liberally in favor of the party opposing the summary judgment. However, conclusory allegations by the party opposing summary judgment are not sufficient to establish an issue of fact and defeat the motion. Finally, we may affirm the granting of summary judgment if any proper ground exists to support the district court’s ruling.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The judgment] must be a 'judgment' in the sense that it is a decision upon a cognizable claim for relief, and it must be 'final' in the sense that it is 'an ultimate disposition of an individual claim entered in the course of a multiple claims action.'”
2 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.