Gary Vickery v. Janell Jones William Pearman Kirk Brown Saline County Republican Central Committee William Roberts’s Empirical Analysis
100 F.3d 1334 · 1996
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently December 2011 · most notably Van Deelen v. Johnson (2007), X-Men Security, Inc. v. Pataki (1999)
11 federal appellate · 2 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Anderson v. Creighton · Ex Parte: Edward T Young
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]f the action prohibited under Rutan is the hiring, promoting, transferring or recalling of an individual based on his or her political association, since the Party Defendants did not hire, promote, transfer, or recall anyone, their screening or recommending the hiring of employees for highway maintainer positions is not the same as being 'jointly engaged with state officials in the prohibited action.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[U]nder “simplified notice pleading,” ... the allegations of the complaint should be liberally construed, and the “complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Private persons, jointly engaged with state officials in the prohibited action, are acting “under color” of law for purposes of the statute. To act “under color” of law does not require that the accused be an officer of the State. It is enough that he is a willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.