Ware v. Jackson County’s Empirical Analysis
150 F.3d 873 · 1998
Citation profile
25 federal appellate · 15 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently March 2026 · most notably Mettler v. Whitledge (1999), Daskalea v. District of Columbia (2000)
25 federal appellate · 15 district · 7 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 · Farmer v. Brennan · Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati · Board of the County Commissioners of Bryan County v. Brown · City of St. Louis v. Praprotnik
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) The existence of a continuing, widespread, persistent pattern of unconstitutional misconduct by the governmental entity’s employees; (2) Deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of such conduct by the governmental entity’s policymaking officials after notice to the officials of that misconduct; and (3) The plaintiffs injury by acts pursuant to the governmental entity’s custom, i.e., proof that the custom was the moving force behind the constitutional violation.”
13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'action pursuant to official municipal policy' or misconduct so pervasive among non-policymaking employees of the municipality'as to constitute a”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the existence of a continuing, widespread, persistent pattern of unconstitutional misconduct by the governmental entity’s employees; (2) deliberate indifference to or tacit authorization of such conduct by the governmental entity’s policy-making officials after notice to the officials of that misconduct; (3) the plaintiffs injury by acts pursuant to the governmental entity’s custom, i.e., proof that the custom was the moving force behind the constitutional violation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Repking v. Lokey
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.