McCarter v. Mitcham’s Empirical Analysis
883 F.2d 196 · 1989
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 62 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2019 · most notably Tafflin v. Levitt (1990), United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit (1990)
18 federal appellate · 10 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 15 U.S.C. § 15 (§ 4 of the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914) · 15 U.S.C. § 78A (§ 1 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 15 U.S.C. § 78J (§ 10 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934) · 18 U.S.C. § 1961 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 1964 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1738
Relies on Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody · Sedima Sprl v. Imrex Company Inc · Wilson v. Garcia · Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson · Kremer v. Chemical Construction 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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, the decision to be applied non-retroactively must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed. Second, it has been stressed that “we must ... weigh the merits-and demerits in each case by looking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retrospective operation will further or retard its operation.” Finally, we have weighed the inequity imposed by retroactive application, for “[w]here a decision of this Court could produce substantial inequitable results if applied retroactively, there is ample basis for avoiding the ‘injustice or hardship’ by a holding of nonretroactivity.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]here the prior dismissal was based on a judgment of non pros, Pennsylvania courts will not give preclusive effect to the judgment,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“was an order `on the merits' within the meaning set forth by the Pennsylvania courts.”
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.