Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 152 F.3d 1193 - Barren v. Harrington

Barren v. Harrington’s Empirical Analysis

152 F.3d 1193 · 1998

Citation profile

629
cited by 629 later decisions
March 2025
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 13 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 629 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Max Lopez Jr v. Ga Smith Larry Loo a Acevedo Patterson 4a-2r (2000), Lee v. City of Los Angeles (2001)

17 federal appellate · 13 district ·

40301998200020102020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Washington v. Davis · Linda R. S. v. Richard D. · McGore v. Wrigglesworth · Sischo-Nownejad v. Merced Community College District

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 629 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “To state a claim under 42 U.S.C. S 1983 for a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a plaintiff must show that the defendants acted with an intent or purpose to discriminate against the plaintiff based upon membership in a protected class.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “parallels the language of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[l]iability under S 1983 must be based on the personal involvement of the defendant”
    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.