Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 973 F.2d 321 - Rainey v. Conerly

Rainey v. Conerly’s Empirical Analysis

973 F.2d 321 · 1992

Citation profile

46
cited by 46 later decisions
1
states following
November 2017
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently November 2017 · most notably Lowery v. Stovall (1996), Vathekan v. Prince George's County (1998)

24 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

310199220002010decided

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 Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Gooden v. Howard County · Slattery v. Rizzo · Blue v. United States Department of the Army · In re Disbarment of Finkelstein

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

  1. “[W]hile the trial court may exclude relevant evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 403 for certain reasons, the basis advanced by the trial court in this case, that the document was ‘not reliable,’ is not a proper ground. Issues of credibility are to be resolved by the jury, not the trial court, and in this case the jury should have been trusted to accord the evidence the proper weight in light of any date discrepancy.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he similarities between this case and Evans are so pronounced that there appears to be no way that a principled distinction can be drawn. Accordingly, we hold that, under the law of this circuit, the district court’s failure to question the jurors as requested by Rainey entitles Rainey to a new trial.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “a determination of what actually happened is absolutely necessary to decide whether [the defendant] could reasonably have believed that his actions were lawful”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.