Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 842 F.2d 1266 - WSB-TV v. Lee

WSB-TV v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis

842 F.2d 1266 · 1988

Citation profile

145
cited by 145 later decisions
February 2018
most recently cited

17 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 145 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Jeffery v. Sarasota White Sox, Inc. (1995), United States v. Fleet Factors Corp. (1990)

17 federal appellate ·

6301988199020002010decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · United States v. Classic · Mercantile Bank & Trust Co. v. Fidelity & Deposit 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 145 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “in deciding whether an inference is reasonable, the Court must “cull the universe of possible inferences from the facts established by weighing each against the abstract standard of reasonableness.” [citation omitted]. The opposing party’s inferences need not be more probable than those inferences in favor of the movant to create a factual dispute, so long as they reasonably may be drawn from the facts. When more than one inference reasonably can be drawn, it is for the trier of fact to determine the proper one.”
    64 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “that summary judgment may only be decided upon an adequate record.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “In our view, the plain language of Rule 56(c) mandates the entry of summary judgment, after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.