Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 865 F.2d 46 - Mesalic v. Slayton

Mesalic v. Slayton’s Empirical Analysis

865 F.2d 46 · 1988

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
1
states following
April 2006
most recently cited

1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 3 later decisions — most recently April 2006

1 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

10198819902000decided

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 KRUVANT BROS. v. Mayor & Council, Tp. of Cedar Grove · 179 N.J. Super. 203 - Urban Farms, Inc. v. Franklin Lakes · 689 F. Supp. 416 - Mesalic v. Slayton

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

  1. “represented a decision by [defendants] ... to apply the zoning ordinances as they existed at that time in good faith, rather than to proceed with the litigation and risk the imposition of injunctive relief and an award of monetary damages and attorneys’ fees. This of necessity included a promise not to amend the ordinance with respect to [plaintiffj’s property. Since the entity responsible for enacting any such amendments was .a party to the stipulation, we see no difficulty in holding it to its freely tendered commitment to the court. To rule otherwise would permit it to ignore a court order and interfere with the judicial process.”
    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.