Small v. Hunt’s Empirical Analysis
98 F.3d 789 · 1996
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently January 2021 · most notably United States v. Winestock (2003), Pacific Insurance Company v. American National Fire Insurance Company, Rail Link, Incorporated (1998)
11 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 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 Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail · Greening v. Moran · ASARCO Inc. v. Kadish · First National Bank v. United States · Van Skiver 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a district court may modify a judgment if it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective application. In exercise of that power, consent decrees... may be modified in appropriate cases on the basis of material changes in operative law or facts.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A party seeking modification has the burden of first “showing [that] a significant change either in factual conditions or in law” warrants revision of the decree. If the movant cites significantly changed factual conditions, it must additionally show that the changed conditions make compliance with the consent decree “more onerous,” “unworkable,” or “detrimental to the public interest.” If the movant succeeds in demonstrating that a significant change in circumstance warrants modification of the decree, a court must then determine whether “the proposed modification is suitably tailored to the changed circumstance.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Michael Parton Donald Yates Terry Walls William Leonard James Bridgewater Robert Smith Ronald L. Boyer James King, Jack Babcock William Cooper Larry Schaal Gerald Bereuter v. Carl White, in His Official Capacity as Superintendent and Chief Administrative Officer at Missouri Training Center for Men at Moberly, Missouri Clarence D. Smith, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Division of Adult Institutions, Missouri Department of Corrections W. David Blackwell, in His Official Capacity as Director of the Division of Adult Institutions, Missouri Department of Corrections Lee Roy Black, in His Official Capacity as the Director of the Missouri Department of Corrections and Human Resources · Carty v. Farrelly“If the movant cites significantly changed factual conditions, it must additionally show that the changed conditions make compliance with the consent decree `more onerous,' `unworkable,' or `detrimental to the public interest.'”
3 later decisions 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.