Brown v. Advantage Engineering, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
960 F.2d 1013 · 1992
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 40 later decisions — most recently January 2023 · most notably Pansy v. Borough of Stroudsburg (1994), Chicago Tribune Company v. Bridgestone/firestone Inc (2001)
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc. · Globe Newspaper Company v. Superior Court for County of Norfolk · Rasberry v. Spradling · McDonald v. E. J. Lavino Co. · Newman v. Graddick
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.
“Once a matter is brought before a court for resolution, it is no longer solely the parties' case, but also the public's case.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'where, as in the present case, the [court] attempts to deny access in order to inhibit the disclosure of sensitive information, it must be shown that the denial is necessitated by a compelling governmental interest, and is narrowly tailored to that interest.’”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the length of time during which the would be intervenor actually knew or reasonably should have known of its interest in the case before it petitioned for leave to intervene. (2) the extent of the prejudice that the existing parties to the litigation may suffer as a result of the would-be intervenor’s failure to apply for intervention as soon as it actually knew or reasonably should have known of its interest in the case. (3) the extent of the prejudice that the would be intervenor may suffer if its petition for leave to intervene is denied; and (4) the existence of unusual circumstances imitating either for or against a determination that the application is timely.”
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.