Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 896 F.2d 1013 - Jarrett v. Epperly

Jarrett v. Epperly’s Empirical Analysis

896 F.2d 1013 · 1990

Citation profile

90
cited by 90 later decisions
4
states following
February 2019
most recently cited

49 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently February 2019 · most notably McPherson v. Kelsey (1997), Lama v. Borras (1994)

49 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

450199020002010decided

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. Raddatz · Brandon v. Holt · S.S. Zoe Colocotroni v. Puerto Rico · Mathews v. Weber · Blackwell v. Sun Electric 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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “where summary judgment is denied and the movant subsequently loses after a full trial on the merits, the denial of summary judgment may not be appealed.”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[W]e believe it would be ... unjust to deprive a party of a jury verdict after the evidence was fully presented, on the basis of an appellate court's review of whether the pleadings and affidavits at the time of the summary judgment motion demonstrated the need for a trial.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “"`Although normally interlocutory orders merge into the final judgment and are then appealable, it has been held that an interlocutory denial of summary judgment will not serve as a ground of appeal after the movant loses a full trial on the merits. This is so because it would be unjust for the [appellate court] to deprive a party of a judgment rendered after a full trial based upon the appellate court's examination of the evidence presented at the time of the motion.'"”
    3 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.