Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 975 F.2d 648 - Jackson v. Gates

Jackson v. Gates’s Empirical Analysis

975 F.2d 648 · 1992

Citation profile

51
cited by 51 later decisions
3
states following
June 2017
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Chew v. Gates (1994), No. 91-55718 (1994)

26 federal appellate · 9 district · 3 state decisions

330199220002010decided

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. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel and Car Corp · Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati · Carnegie v. United States · City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik · Salve Regina College v. Russell

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

  1. “The district court's decision to grant or deny judgment notwithstanding the verdict is reviewed de novo.... Denial of such a motion is appropriate if the evidence and its inferences, considered as a whole, and viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, cannot reasonably support a judgment in favor of the moving party.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “To support a claimed violation of an individual's substantive due process rights, we have stated that the [defendant's] conduct must be clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “arbitrator is a neutral entity who is confined to the interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement”
    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.