Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 170 F.2d 705 - Bottone v. Lindsley

Bottone v. Lindsley’s Empirical Analysis

170 F.2d 705 · 1948

Citation profile

134
cited by 134 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
July 2005
most recently cited

85 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 134 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2005 · most notably Monroe v. Pape (1961), Stefanelli v. Minard (1951)

85 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions

5601948195019601970198019902000decided

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 Hague v. Committee for Industrial Organization · Screws v. United States · United States v. Classic · Snowden v. Hughes · Logan v. United States

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

  1. “[T]o make out a cause of action under the Civil Rights Statutes, the state court proceedings must have been a complete nullity, with a purpose to deprive a person of his property without due process of law. To hold otherwise would open the door wide to every aggrieved litigant in a state court proceedings, and set the federal courts up as an arbiter of the correctness of every state decision. `The Fourteenth Amendment did not alter the basic relations between the States and the national government.' * * * Nor does it `assure uniformity of decisions or immunity from merely erroneous action.'”
    12 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The Civil Rights statute, 8 U. S.C.A. § 43, has been held to extend only to eases where a ‘person' acting under color of a statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of a state or territory,: deprives a citizen or other person of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States."”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““We seriously doubt whether lawyers who invoke the jurisdiction of a State Court for the purpose of prosecuting a claim against a private individual, are state functionaries acting under color of law within the meaning of Section 43 [42 U.S.C.A. 1983].””
    2 later decisions 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.