Semper v. Santos’s Empirical Analysis
845 F.2d 1233 · 1988
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Brown v. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (1994), In re TMI Litigation (1999)
30 federal appellate · 7 district ·
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 Goodman v. Lukens Steel Co. · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Universal Minerals, Inc. v. C. A. Hughes & Co. · New York Stock Exchange v. Legate · Michael Meyers, Individually and as Representative of a Class v. Pennypack Woods Home Ownership Association and Marion A. Steinbronn
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The trial court's exclusion of testimony because of the failure of counsel to adhere to a pretrial order will not be disturbed on appeal absent a clear abuse of discretion.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“it is questionable whether the rebuttal testimony would have materially helped Semper.... [B]oth the trial judge and the Appellate Division of the District Court discounted the significance of [the] proposed testimony.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“two-tiered system of appellate review[,] ... the [Third Circuit] should review the trial court's determination using the same standard of review applied by”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ba Properties Inc
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.