Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 922 F.2d 1536 - Executive Inc v. Martin County

Executive Inc v. Martin County’s Empirical Analysis

922 F.2d 1536 · 1991

Citation profile

167
cited by 167 later decisions
3
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

54 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 167 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Mayhew v. Town of Sunnyvale (1998), Haves v. City of Miami (1995)

54 federal appellate · 10 state decisions

11501991200020102020decided

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 Conley v. Gibson · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Neitzke v. Williams · City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center

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

  1. “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) authorizes a court to dismiss a complaint on the basis of a dispositive issue of law.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Brown v. Crawford County · Daewoo Motor America, Inc. v. General Motors Corp.
  2. “Our cases uniformly reflect an insistence on knowing the nature and extent of permitted development before adjudicating the constitutionality of the regulations that purport to limit it.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Brown v. Crawford County · Brown v. Crawford County
  3. “ha[d] not yet obtained a final decision regarding the application of the zoning ordinance and subdivision regulations”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Specialty Malls of Tampa v. City of Tampa, Fla. · Samaad v. City of Dallas

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.