Garrison v. Burke’s Empirical Analysis
165 F.3d 565 · 1999
Citation profile
18 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently November 2018 · most notably Palmer v. Marion County (2003), Hostetler v. Quality Dining, Inc. (2000)
18 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
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati · Bohen v. City of East Chicago · Doe v. Rr Donnelley & Sons Company · Flaherty v. Gas Research Institute
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) an express policy that, when enforced, causes a constitutional deprivation; (2) a widespread practice that, although not authorized by written law or express municipal policy, is so permanent and well settled as to constitute ‘custom or usage’ with the force of law; or (3) an allegation that the constitutional injury was caused by a person with ‘final policymaking authority.’”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Acts that fall outside the statute of limitations may be joined to an act within the statute only if a reasonable person in the position of the plaintiff would not have known, at the time the untimely acts occurred, that she had a claim.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A] failure to properly contest in the 12(N) statement of material facts set out in the movant’s 12(M) statement, constitutes a binding admission of those facts. In such a case, we “depart from our usual posture of construing all facts in favor of the nonmoving party; rather we accept as true all material facts contained in [the moving party’s] 12(M) statement.””
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.