Meehan’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Trevino v. Gates (1996), Kostelec v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. (1995)
5 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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 Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati · City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle · City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik · Torres v. Oakland Scavenger 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“utterly fails to provide such notice to either intended recipient. Permitting such vague designation would leave the appellee and the court unable to determine with certitude whether a losing party not named in the notice of appeal should be bound by an adverse judgment or held liable for costs or sanctions. 11 Torres, 487 U.S. at 318, 108 S.Ct. at 2409; accord Meehan, 856 F.2d at 105. 12 Here, there were four defendants besides TMCI.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We have held that a mistake in designating the judgment appealed from should not bar appeal as long as the intent to appeal a specific judgment can be fairly inferred and the appellee is not prejudiced or misled by the mistake.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“is simply too vague: 10 The purpose of the specificity requirement of Rule 3(c) is to provide notice both to the opposition and to the court of the identity of the appellant or appellants. The use of the phrase”
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.