Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 972 F.2d 507 - Thomas v. Raymark Industries

Thomas v. Raymark Industries’s Empirical Analysis

1992

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
2
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Spain v. Gallegos (1994), Bethel v. McAllister Bros. (1996)

3 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions

1401992200020102020decided

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 Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Allied Chemical Corporation v. Daiflon Inc · California v. ARC America Corp. · Holmes v. United States · Cochran 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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “As noted in the Advisory Committee’s Note to Rule 401, “Relevancy is not an inherent characteristic of any item of evidence but exists only as a relation between an item of evidence and a matter properly provable in the case.” Because the rule makes evidence relevant “if it has any tendency to prove a consequential fact, it follows that evidence is irrelevant only when it has no tendency to prove the fact.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “grant or deny a new trial is confided almost entirely to the discretion of the district court.”
    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.