Spencer v. Doe’s Empirical Analysis
139 F.3d 107 · 1998
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 10 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably Herbert Blyden v. Vincent Mancusi (1999), Chang v. United States (2001)
8 federal appellate · 10 district · 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
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Haines v. Kerner · Kentucky v. Graham · Will v. Michigan Department of State Police · Neitzke v. Williams
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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the duration of the plaintiffs failure to comply with the court order; (2) whether the plaintiff was on notice that failure to comply would result in dismissal; (3) whether the defendants are likely to be prejudiced by further delay in the proceedings; (4) a balancing of the court’s interest in managing its docket with the plaintiffs interest in receiving a fair chance to be heard; and (5) whether the judge has adequately considered a sanction less drastic than dismissal.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the supervisory official, after learning of the violation, failed to remedy the wrong; (2) the supervisory official created a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occurred or allowed such policy or custom to continue; or (3) the supervisory official was grossly negligent in managing subordinates who caused the unlawful condition or event.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“neither a state nor one of CT Page 3607 its agencies nor an official of that agency sued in his or her official capacity is a person under § 1983.”
2 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.