White v. Balderama’s Empirical Analysis
153 F.3d 237 · 1998
Citation profile
14 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Judith Bazan Victoria Rose Bazan Rose Marie Avalos v. Hidalgo County et al., Betty Thompson (2001)
14 federal appellate ·
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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Graham v. Connor · Bell v. Wolfish · Johnson v. Jones · Behrens v. Pelletier · Krishnamurthy v. Nimmagadda
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“lack of specificity in ... district court's order denying summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“See id. 9 In this case, the district court did not outline the factual scenario it assumed in construing the summary judgment evidence in the light most favorable to the Officers. In fact, it appears that it rested its ruling solely on the allegations made by the Officers in their Third Amended Complaint. This would be improper in light of the Supreme Court's instructions in Behrens. Considering it is not clear that the district court assumed a factual scenario supported by summary judgment evidence in applying the Harlow test, and if it did, what that factual scenario is, the more”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Castillo“Johnson [v. Jones, 515 U.S. 304 , 115 S.Ct. 2151 , 132 L.Ed.2d 238 (1995),] makes clear that an appellate cowrt may not review a district court’s determination that the issues of fact in question are genuine.... Behrens, on the other hand, makes clear that an appellate court is free to review a district court’s determination that the issues' of fact in question are material.”
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.