Rivera-Gomez v. Castro’s Empirical Analysis
900 F.2d 1 · 1990
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 13 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably Cumpiano v. Banco Santander Puerto Rico (1990), Rivera-Muriente v. Agosto-Alicea (1992)
31 federal appellate · 13 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. Zannino · Mack v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. · Fashion House, Inc. v. K Mart Corp. · Rivera-Gomez v. de Castro
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 56 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]here there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... we ... think that, in this instance, the district court acted wisely and within its discretion in utilizing rule 12(d), we need not definitively resolve the issue of whether, and under what circumstances, Rule 12(d) can be utilized as a vehicle for preventative testing of the sufficiency of a limitations defense. Because appellants neither objected on this ground below nor assigned error to the procedural arrangement in their appellate brief, any shortcoming was waived, (citations omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Preliminary Hearings. The defenses specifically enumerated (l)-(7) in [Rule] 12(b), whether made in a pleading or by motion, and the motion for judgment mentioned in [Rule 12(c) ] shall be heard and determined before trial or application of any party, unless the court orders that the hearing and determination thereof be deferred until the trial.”
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.