Watkins v. Lujan’s Empirical Analysis
922 F.2d 261 · 1991
Citation profile
14 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently March 2018 · most notably Hill v. Shelander (1991), Leaf v. Supreme Court of the State of Wisconsin (1992)
14 federal appellate ·
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. § 791 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 717 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Brown v. General Services Administration · Idaho v. Wright · Sessions v. Rusk State Hospital · Stanley v. Central Intelligence Agency · Boelens v. Redman Homes, Inc.
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]hile a court must dismiss a case over which it has no jurisdiction when a fatal defect appears, leave to amend defective allegations of subject matter jurisdiction should be freely given.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) that the claim against the newly named defendants arose out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth in the original complaint, (2) that within the 120-day period for service of the summons and complaint, the newly named party have received notice of the institution of the action such that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits, and (3) that within that same time period of time, the newly named party must have known, or should have known, that “but for a mistake,” he or she would have been named as a defendant in the first place.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“even more compelling in light of [the plaintiff's] pro se status and the liberality accorded the pleadings of such parties.”
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.