Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 930 F.2d 1502 - Romero v. Peterson

Romero v. Peterson’s Empirical Analysis

930 F.2d 1502 · 1991

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
2
states following
February 2014
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably City of Chanute Kansas v. Williams Natural Gas Company (1994), Tarabishi v. McAlester Regional Hospital (1991)

15 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

230199120002010decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 3055 · 28 U.S.C. § 1927 · 28 U.S.C. § 2675 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Graham v. Connor · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Kentucky v. Graham · Nixon v. Fitzgerald

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

  1. “common-sense meaning of the two simple words applied to the facts which are developed.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Gary Hannah v. City of Albuquerque Frank A. Kleinhenz City of Albuquerque Personnel Board · Makin v. Department of Corrections
  2. “A district court's determination of excusable neglect will be reversed only for a clear abuse of discretion.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. United States v. St. Paul Fire And Marine Insurance Company · United States Mechanical Inc v. St Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company D
  3. “that at the time of the alleged civil rights violation defendants [Peterson and Rael] were acting under color of federal law because they had been cross-deputized with the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) and the Pueblo of Picuris and, pursuant to an arrangement between the BIA and the Pueblo of Taos, were empowered to make arrests on the Pueblo of Taos.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Romero v. Peterson

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.