No. 92-4084’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 50 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently June 2020 · most notably Whitney v. State of New Mexico (1997), Workman v. Jordan (1994)
3 federal appellate · 50 district · 8 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Paul v. Davis · Wisconsin v. Constantineau
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Should it appear from the affidavits of a party opposing the motion that the party cannot for reasons stated present by affidavit facts essential to justify the party’s opposition, the court may refuse the application for judgment or may order a continuance to permit affidavits to be obtained or depositions to be taken or discovery to be had or may make such other order as is just.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A prerequisite to granting relief [pursuant to Rule 56(d) ] ... is an affidavit furnished by the nonmovant. Although the affidavit need not contain evidentiary facts, it must explain why facts precluding summary judgment cannot be presented. This includes identifying the probable facts not available and what steps have been taken to obtain these facts. In this circuit, the nonmovant also must explain how additional time will enable him to rebut movant’s allegations of no genuine issue of fact.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“invoked by the mere assertion that discovery is incomplete or that specific facts necessary to oppose summary judgment are unavailable.”
6 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.