Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 915 F.2d 283 - Weir v. Propst

Weir v. Propst’s Empirical Analysis

915 F.2d 283 · 1990

Citation profile

57
cited by 57 later decisions
2
states following
August 2020
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently August 2020 · most notably 26 1673 74636 James Wilson Associates Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (1992), Otis v. City of Chicago (1994)

27 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

3701990200020102020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292

Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown · Kennedy v. City of Cleveland · Forsyth v. Kleindienst

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

  1. “shall be of the opinion that such an order involves a controlling question of law as to which there is substantial ground for difference of opinion and that an immediate appeal from the order may materially advance the ultimate termination of the litigation.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “An amendment that will have the effect of extending the limitation is proper only if there is a reason for the delay.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The deadlines in Rule 4(a) for appeals in civil cases apply to all appealable orders, including collateral orders.... If the deadline is missed, the order is not appealable. The [party] must wait until another appealable order (normally, the final judgment) is entered, upon appeal of which he can challenge any interlocutory order that has not become moot.”
    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.