Rubin v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
1995
Citation profile
7 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 8 later decisions — most recently November 2014
7 district ·
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 15 U.S.C. § 636 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 636
Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCann · Price v. Johnston · Harris v. Nelson · Peretz v. United States
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 8 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Not being among the list of dispositive motions identified in section 636(b)(1)(A), and neither “finally resolving” nor addressing the merits of the parties’ claims, the court hereby finds and rules that the appointment of a guardian ad litem is a non-dispositive act as that term is defined in Rule 72(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., and by implication in 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(A).”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Rubin v. Smith
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.