Durhan v. Neopolitan’s Empirical Analysis
875 F.2d 91 · 1989
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably Brokaw v. Mercer County (2000), School Asbestos Litigation Pfizer Inc v. Kelly Kaiser Cement Corporation (1992)
21 federal appellate · 2 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1738 · 28 U.S.C. § 455 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education · Vandygriff v. Phillips · Hannahville Indian Community v. United States · Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“were generated by the same transaction, incident or core of operative facts,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[F]or purposes of claim preclusion, the replevin and civil rights actions are only two theories of one cause of action rather than two causes of action. Both recovery theories examine the legality of the defendants’ conduct. If plaintiff parked in contravention of local law, if the seizure statute for illegally parked cars is not constitutionally infirm and if defendants complied with the statutory procedure, their actions in seizing and retaining the vehicles were lawful, so that plaintiff was not entitled to either return of the cars under the replevin statute or injunctive, compensatory or punitive damages for violation of due process. Both inquiries there are merely different theories for finding defendants’ conduct unlawful.... “[A] party may not maintain two suits based on the same set of facts by the simple expediency of limiting theories of recovery advanced in the first.””
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.