Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 908 F.2d 1053 - Doty v. Sewall

Doty v. Sewall’s Empirical Analysis

908 F.2d 1053 · 1990

Citation profile

105
cited by 105 later decisions
3
states following
January 2022
most recently cited

60 federal appellate · 14 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 105 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably Acevedo-Diaz v. Aponte (1993), Texaco Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Department of Consumer Affairs (1995)

60 federal appellate · 14 district · 3 state decisions

7001990200020102020decided

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 29 U.S.C. § 153 (§ 3 of the National Labor Relations Act) · 29 U.S.C. § 411

Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Guaranty Trust Co. v. York · United States v. Feola

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

  1. “no substantial right of the party is affected where the evidence admitted was cumulative as to other admitted evidence.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[i]n any action in which a verdict is rendered or a finding made or an order for judgment made for pecuniary damages for personal injuries to the plaintiff or for consequential damages, or for damage to property, there shall be added by the clerk of court to the amount of damages interest thereon at the rate of twelve per cent per annum from the date of commencement of the action ....”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “). 44 We note that under Federal Rule of Evidence 103(a), we review the decision not only to determine whether a substantial right of the party is affected, but also to see whether a timely objection”
    2 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.