Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 16 F.3d 1475 - Lawshe v. Simpson

Lawshe v. Simpson’s Empirical Analysis

16 F.3d 1475 · 1994

Citation profile

61
cited by 61 later decisions
2
states following
July 2025
most recently cited

33 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently July 2025 · most notably Baxter ex rel. Baxter v. Vigo County School Corp. (1994), Smith v. City of Enid (1998)

33 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

4001994200020102020decided

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. § 1988

Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · Perry v. Sindermann · Bishop v. Wood · 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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “to identify the constitutional violation and locate it in time.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “In determining whether the right alleged to have been violated was “clearly established,” the constitutional right must be identified in a particularized sense with respect to the circumstances of the alleged violation. In other words, the contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. The plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the constitutional right allegedly violated was clearly established before the defendant acted or failed to act. This requires the plaintiff to offer either a closely analogous case or evidence that the defendants’ conduct is patently violative of the constitutional right that reasonable officials would know without guidance from the courts. To determine the applicability of qualified immunity, the defendants’ actions must be compared to what a reasonable official would believe was required in light of the clearly established legal rules....”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “If the defendant in a run-of-the-mill civil case moves for summary judgment ... based on the lack of proof of a material fact, the judge must ask himself not whether he thinks the evidence unmistakably favors one side or the other but whether a fair-minded jury could return a verdict for the plaintiff on the evidence presented. The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiffs position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.”
    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.