Bogan v. Stroud’s Empirical Analysis

958 F.2d 180 · 1992

Citation profile

cited by 40 later decisions

March 2017

most recently cited

29 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently March 2017 · most notably U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. AIC Security Investigations, Ltd. (1995), Cooper v. Casey (1996)

29 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 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Whitley v. Albers · Smith v. Wade · Hackler v. Langenkamp · Poythress v. Kessler · Beatrice WILLIAMSON, Plaintiff-Appellee-Cross-Appellant, v. HANDY BUTTON MACHINE COMPANY, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee

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

“No party may assign as error the giving or the failure to give an instruction unless that party objects thereto before the jury retires to consider its verdict, stating distinctly the matter objected to and the grounds of the objection.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Spraying Systems Co., an Illinois Corporation v. William F. Smart Co., Inc. · Stachniak v. Hayes
“' Sims v. Mulcahy, 902 F.2d 524 , 535 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, U.S. , 111 S.Ct. 249 [112 L.Ed.2d 207] (1990) (quoting Williamson v. Handy Button Machine Co., 817 F.2d 1290 , 1295 (7th Cir.1987)).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Stachniak v. Hayes
“We express no opinion as to the appropriateness of the instructions; the defendants' failure to object precludes us from passing judgment on their substantive merit.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Spraying Systems Co., an Illinois Corporation v. William F. Smart Co., Inc.

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.