Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 985 F.2d 330 - Tobey v. Extel/JWP, Inc.

Tobey v. Extel/JWP, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis

985 F.2d 330 · 1993

Citation profile

95
cited by 95 later decisions
2
states following
April 2023
most recently cited

53 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 95 later decisions — most recently April 2023 · most notably Waldridge v. American Hoechst Corp. (1994), McKenzie v. Illinois Department of Transportation (1996)

53 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

6701993200020102020decided

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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Bankers Trust Co. v. Mallis · Bohen v. City of East Chicago · McKnight v. General Motors Corp.

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

  1. “without deference for the view of the district court and hence almost as if the motion had been made to us directly.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “within this reading of the Fager exception and that the question of whether the conduct of Doe's parents, by deception or violation of duty, operated to conceal material facts from Doe is an issue for a jury to decide. ANALYSIS 18 Whether a movant is entitled to summary judgment is a question of law. Accordingly, we must review the record and controlling law de novo,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Although the order does not comply with the requirements of Fed.R.Civ.P. 58, it sufficiently indicates [the trial court judge’s] determination to be done with the case to constitute a final decision for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1291 .”
    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.