Hamilton v. Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 11 later decisions — most recently December 2016
3 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (White-Collar Crime Penalty Enhancement Act of 2002) · 18 U.S.C. § 3282
Relies on Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Construction Corp. · Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson · Agency Holding Corporation v. Malley-Duff & Associates Inc Crown Life Insurance Company · Pendergast v. United States · Ceres Partners v. GEL Associates
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 11 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“For purposes of the motion, all well-pleaded material allegations of the non-moving party’s pleading are to be taken as true, and all allegations of the moving party which have been denied are taken as false. Conclusions of law are not deemed admitted. On the basis of the facts so admitted, the court may grant judgment only if the moving party is clearly entitled to judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Permitting plaintiff to revive a claim in response to an action for a declaration of nonliability would lead to the 'incongruous result' of precluding entirely suits for declaratory judgment on limitations grounds in jurisdictions with revival statutes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the suggestion that a plaintiff in one action can `revive' his concededly stale claims by filing them as counterclaims in a parallel action brought by the defendant solely for the purpose of having those claims declared stale”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.