Frutiger v. Hamilton Central School District’s Empirical Analysis
928 F.2d 68 · 1991
Citation profile
3 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently May 2016
3 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 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975) · 20 U.S.C. § 1415 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 28 U.S.C. § 1651 · 28 U.S.C. § 1912 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Honig v. Doe · School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education · Smith v. Robinson · Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp. · Switzerland Cheese Association Inc v. E Horne's Market 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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An injunction may be defined as an order that is directed to a party, enforceable by contempt, and designed to accord or protect some or all of the substantive relief sought by a complaint in more than temporary fashion. It is to be contrasted with an order by a court that regulates the conduct of the litigation, which is not considered an injunction for the purposes of appellate jurisdiction, even though punishable by contempt.”
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.