Leroy v. City of Houston’s Empirical Analysis
906 F.2d 1068 · 1990
Citation profile
31 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. Kellstrom (1995), Mason v. Texaco, Inc. (1991)
31 federal appellate · 1 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) · 33 U.S.C. § 1369 · 42 U.S.C. § 1973C (§ 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1973L (§ 14 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Blum v. Stenson · Hutto v. Finney · Blanchard v. Bergeron · Commissioner, Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Jean
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he plaintiffs, experienced attorneys representing themselves, adamantly refused to file a motion to recall the mandate, as the Notes of the Advisory Committee, to which their attention had been called, clearly suggested that they could do, as did also prior decisions of our Court. They instead insisted that the district court grant them relief, which it had no authority to grant absent our modification of the mandate. No reason or excuse for this failure has ever been proffered.”). 24 .See 28 U.S.C. § 1961 (a) (setting the post-judgment interest rate for interest”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“On several occasions we have treated an appellate request for interest from the first judgment as allowing us to sua sponte recall our earlier mandate where we deemed that required in the interest of justice.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Since the rule directs that the matter of interest be disposed of by the mandate, in cases where interest is simply overlooked, a party who conceives himself entitled to interest from a date other than the date of entry of judgment in accordance with the mandate should be entitled to seek recall of the mandate for determination of the question.”
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.