Palmieri v. Defaria’s Empirical Analysis
88 F.3d 136 · 1996
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 11 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Herzog v. Castle Rock Entertainment (1999), City of New York v. Mickalis Pawn Shop, LLC (2011)
26 federal appellate · 11 district · 6 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 17 U.S.C. § 106 (§ 101 of the Copyright Act of 1976) · 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292
Relies on Link v. Wabash Railroad · Luce v. United States · O’Callahan v. Parker, Warden · Boatmen's National Bank of St. Louis v. Carver · Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Landry
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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The purpose of an in limine motion is to aid the trial process by enabling the Court to rule in advance of trial on the relevance of certain forecasted evidence, as to issues that are definitely set for trial, without lengthy argument at, or interruption of, the trial.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`is subject to change when the case unfolds . . . . Indeed even if nothing unexpected happens at trial, the district judge is free, in the exercise of sound judicial discretion, to alter a previous in limine ruling.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Because [the] plaintiff may reinstate his action regardless of the decision of the appellate court, permitting an appeal is clearly an end-run around the final judgment rule.”); Le-Compte v. Mr. Chip, Inc., 528 F.2d 601 , 603 (5th Cir.1976) (explaining that general rule barring appeal by plaintiff”
2 later decisions 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.