Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 933 F.2d 156 - McGregor v. United States

McGregor v. United States’s Empirical Analysis

933 F.2d 156 · 1991

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
1
states following
October 2015
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently October 2015 · most notably Zapata v. City of New York (2007), Watters v. Stripling (1996)

11 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

310199120002010decided

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. § 2401

Relies on Davidson v. Keenan · Jordan v. United States · Frasca v. United States · Zankel 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[I]f a plaintiff fails to provide service within the required 120-day time period], the action ‘shall be dismissed as to that defendant without prejudice upon the court’s own initiative with notice to such party or upon motion’ absent a showing of good cause why service was not made within that period.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “apparently deliberate attempt to secure the demise of plaintiffs' claims”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “If (1) necessary parties in the government have actual notice of a suit; (2) the government suffers no prejudice from a technical defect in service; (3) there is a justifiable excuse for the failure to serve properly; and (4) the plaintiff would be severely prejudiced if the complaint were dismissed, then courts should not construe Rule 4(d)(4) [Rule 4(i)’s predecessor] so rigidly as to deny plaintiffs relief from dismissal because of a technical defect in service.”
    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.