Mathie v. Fries’s Empirical Analysis
121 F.3d 808 · 1997
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 7 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions — most recently October 2024 · most notably Dawes v. Walker (2001), Robert Linda Provost v. The City of Newburgh (2001)
27 federal appellate · 7 district · 6 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 Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Kentucky v. Graham · BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore
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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the degree of reprehensibility of the tortious conduct; (2) the ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages; and (3) the difference between this remedy and the civil penalties authorized or imposed in comparable cases.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[u]nder well established precedent in this Circuit, 'it is the defendant's burden to show that his financial circumstances warrant a limitation of the award.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A claim against a government officer in his official capacity is, and should be treated as, a claim against the entity that employs the officer ... [citation omitted] ... A claim against a person ‘in his former official capacity’ has no meaning. If the claimant seeks to hold the offender personally responsible, the claim is against the person in his individual capacity. A claim against an offender is his official capacity is, and should be treated as, a claim against the entity that employs the officer.”
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.