Britt v. Whitmire’s Empirical Analysis
956 F.2d 509 · 1992
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently December 2019 · most notably Schroeder v. McDonald (1995), In the Matter of West Texas Marketing Corporation v. Walter Kellogg--Trustee
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
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
Relies on Porzig v. Nolden · Cincinnati Milacron Chemicals, Inc. v. Blankenship · Wrenn v. Ohio Department of Mental Health · Harcon Barge Co. v. D & G Boat Rentals, Inc. · George L. Barry v. Otis R. Bowen
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“for overtime payment calculations. 3 Britt moved for partial summary judgment on the comp time claim on June 19, 1989. The City responded to Britt's motion and simultaneously filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on all claims on September 15, 1989. On May 15, 1990, the district court issued a memorandum opinion in which it denied Britt's motion for partial summary judgment and granted the City's”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Britt v. Whitmire“as appellants. Britt amended the notice of appeal on June 4, 1990 to list each of the other officers as appellants. On June 8, 1990, the City filed a motion for entry of final judgment, asserting that the City had moved for and was entitled to summary judgment on all claims, but that the district court's May 15 order granted only”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Britt v. Whitmire“seeking clarification of the district court's order with regard to whether benefits were to be awarded immediately or whether additional administrative proceedings were to be conducted. The Ninth Circuit held that the government's motion was for relief under Rule 59(e). The court noted that”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Britt v. Whitmire
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.