Brooks v. Skinner’s Empirical Analysis
2015
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000D · 42 U.S.C. § 2000D
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the harassment was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it could be said to deprive [plaintiffs] of access to the educational opportunities or benefits provided by the school; (2) [defendants] had actual knowledge of the harassment; and (3) [defendants were] deliberately indifferent to the harassment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“In determining whether the alleged harassment was so severe, pervasive, and objectively offensive that it could be said to have deprived plaintiffs of access to educational opportunities, courts look to the nature, frequency, and duration of the harassment, as well as its effect on the victim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[A] plaintiff may demonstrate [a] defendant's deliberate indifference to discrimination 'only where the recipient's response to the harassment or lack thereof is clearly unreasonable in light of the known circumstances.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.