Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 939 F.2d 1311 - Branch-Hines v. Hebert

Branch-Hines v. Hebert’s Empirical Analysis

939 F.2d 1311 · 1991

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
2
states following
July 2021
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. v. Capece (1998), Kona Technology Corp. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co. (2000)

26 federal appellate · 6 state decisions

2601991200020102020decided

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. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 703 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 Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Hensley v. Eckerhart · Texas State Teachers Ass'n v. Garland Independent School District · City of Riverside v. Rivera · Murzyn 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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'It is a well-settled rule that a joint pretrial order signed by both parties supersedes all pleadings and governs the issues and evidence to be presented at trial.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “ha[s] consistently emphasized that 'there is no per se requirement of proportionality in an award of attorney fees.'”
    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.