Zelazny v. Lyng’s Empirical Analysis
853 F.2d 540 · 1988
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently November 2019 · most notably United States v. Berkowitz (1991), Herman v. City of Chicago (1989)
49 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
Relies on Morgan v. United States · Gardner v. Panama Railroad · Robnett v. United States · Triangle Improvement Council v. Ritchie · United States Arant v. Lane
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'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.'”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he plaintiffs inexcusable delay is relevant to whether actual prejudice has been shown. “If only a short period of time has elapsed since the accrual of the claim, the magnitude of prejudice require[d] before the suit should be barred is great, whereas if the delay is lengthy, prejudice is more likely to have occurred and less proof of prejudice will be required.””
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“' Id. at 408-09 (quoting Sanchez v. Miller, 792 F.2d 694 , 703 (7th Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1056, 107 S.Ct. 933, 93 L.Ed.2d 984 (1987)). Mr. Zelazny's conclusory remarks about his lack of diligence without any further argument on the issue and without any attempt to offer a justification for his delay do not comply with the strictures of Rule 28(a)(4). Therefore, even if Mr. Zelazny disputes the district court's determination of inexcusable delay, he has waived any argument on that issue.”
1 later decision 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.