Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 89 F.3d 194 - Alexander v. Britt

Alexander v. Britt’s Empirical Analysis

89 F.3d 194 · 1996

Citation profile

20
cited by 20 later decisions
1
states following
June 2013
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently June 2013

7 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

150199620002010decided

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

Relies on United States v. Swift & Co. · Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail · Granito v. United States · United States v. ITT Continental Baking Co. · Board of Education of Oklahoma City Public Schools Independent School District No 89 Oklahoma County Oklahoma v. L Dowell

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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) the circumstances leading to entry of the injunction and the nature of the conduct sought to be prevented; (2) the length of time since entry of the injunction; (3) whether the party subject to its terms has complied or attempted to comply in good faith with the injunction; (4) the likelihood that the conduct or conditions sought to be prevented will recur absent the injunction; (5) whether the moving party can demonstrate a significant, unforeseen change in the facts or law and whether such changed circumstances have made compliance substantially more onerous or have made the decree unworkable; and (6) whether the objective of the decree has been achieved and whether continued enforcement would be detrimental to the public interest.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “On motion and upon such terms as are just, the court may relieve a party ... from a final judgment, order, or proceeding for the following reasons: (5) the judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged ... or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application; or (6) any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “embodies an agreement of the parties and thus in some respects is contractual in nature. But it is an agreement that the parties desire and expect will be reflected in, and be enforceable as, a judicial decree that is subject to the rules generally applicable to other judgments and decrees.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.