Beard v. Whitley County REMC’s Empirical Analysis
840 F.2d 405 · 1988
Citation profile
153 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 332 later decisions — most recently June 2021 · most notably Street v. Jc Bradford & Company (1989), United States v. Berkowitz (1991)
153 federal appellate · 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. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Texas Department of Community Affairs v. Burdine
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 332 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'no genuine issue as to any material fact', since a complete failure of proof concerning an essential element of the nonmoving party's case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.”
25 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is not the obligation of this court to research and construct the legal arguments open to parties, especially when they are represented by counsel.”
15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“material fact issues where there are none....' Secretary of Labor v. Lauritzen, 835 F.2d 1529 , 1534 (7th Cir.1987) (quoting Mintz v. Mathers Fund, Inc., 463 F.2d 495 , 498 (7th Cir.1972)).”
5 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.