Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 849 F.2d 793 - Perez v. Ortiz

Perez v. Ortiz’s Empirical Analysis

849 F.2d 793 · 1988

Citation profile

104
cited by 104 later decisions
5
states following
September 2022
most recently cited

43 federal appellate · 5 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 104 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably Hecht v. Commerce Clearing House, Inc. (1990), St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company v. Pepsico, Inc., Pepsico, Inc., Third-Party v. Banner Industries, Inc., Third-Party (1989)

43 federal appellate · 5 district · 9 state decisions

57019881990200020102020decided

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. § 1915 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Kentucky v. Graham · Hagans v. Lavine · Curtiss-Wright Corporation v. General Electric Company

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

  1. “[Providing the adversely affected party with notice and an opportunity to be heard plays an important role in establishing the fairness and reliability of the order. It avoids the risk that the court may overlook valid answers to its perception of defects in the plaintiffs case. Furthermore, denying a plaintiff an opportunity to be heard may tend to produce the very effect the court seeks to avoid — a waste of judicial resources — by leading to appeals and remands. Unless it is unmistakably clear that the court lacks jurisdiction, or that the complaint lacks merit or is otherwise defective, we believe it is bad practice for a district court to dismiss without affording a plaintiff the opportunity to be heard in opposition.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[t]he district court has no authority to dismiss a complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to be heard.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the interest of sound judicial administration”
    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.