Mallory v. Eyrich’s Empirical Analysis
922 F.2d 1273 · 1991
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 152 later decisions — most recently September 2025 · most notably Mock v. T.G. & Y. Stores Co. (1992), Sharpe v. Cureton (2003)
46 federal appellate · 4 district · 11 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 · 42 U.S.C. § 1973 (§ 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1973L (§ 14 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on General Telephone Co. of Southwest v. Falcon · Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay · Browder v. Director Department of Corrections of Illinois · Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp. · Ackermann v. United States
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 152 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“At any time more than 10 days before the trial begins, a party defending against a claim may serve upon the adverse party an offer to allow judgment to be taken against the defending party ... If within 10 days after the service of the offer the adverse party serves written notice that the offer is accepted, either party may then file the offer and notice of acceptance together with proof of service thereof and thereupon the clerk shall enter judgment.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“By directing that the clerk shall enter judgment after proof of offer and acceptance have been filed, the explicit language of the rule signifies that the district court possesses no discretion to alter or modify the parties' agreement”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage“District courts have inherent power to reconsider interlocutory orders and re-open any part of a case before entry of a final judgment.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.