Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 865 F.2d 827 - Cygnar v. City of Chicago

Cygnar v. City of Chicago’s Empirical Analysis

865 F.2d 827 · 1989

Citation profile

176
cited by 176 later decisions
1
states following
August 2020
most recently cited

103 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 176 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably McNabola v. Chicago Transit Authority (1993), Antonelli v. Sheahan (1996)

103 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions

127019891990200020102020decided

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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton

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

  1. “[B]ecause the authority to grant a new trial ... is confided almost entirely to the exercise of discretion on the part of the trial court, ... the grant or denial of a motion for a new trial is not subject to review by this court, except upon exceptional circumstances showing a clear abuse of discretion.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““we must determine de novo ‘whether the evidence presented, combined with all reasonable inferences permissibly drawn therefrom, is sufficient to support the verdict when viewed in a light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is directed.’ ””
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “... while the trial judge’s determination of the propriety of a jury’s damage award warrants substantial deference (because of his or her superior position to assess the credibility of witnesses and the like), “a somewhat more exacting standard should apply” where the court grants, rather than denies, a new trial on damages.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.