Thaddeus-X v. Blatter’s Empirical Analysis
175 F.3d 378 · 1999
Citation profile
167 federal appellate · 26 district · 17 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 722 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Michael Malik Allah v. Thomas Seiverling (2000), Henry Rauser v. Martin Horn in His Official Capacity As Commissioner of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (2001)
167 federal appellate · 26 district · 17 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Estelle v. Gamble
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 722 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the plaintiff engaged in protected conduct; (2) an adverse action was taken against the plaintiff that would deter a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in that conduct; and (3) there is a causal connection between elements one and two — that is, the adverse action was motivated at least in part by the plaintiffs protected conduct.”
58 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Bell v. Johnson · Muhammad v. Close“chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[0]nce the plaintiff has met his burden of establishing that his protected conduct was a motivating factor behind any harm, the burden of production shifts to the defendant. If the defendant can show that he would have taken the same action in the absence of the protected activity, he is entitled to prevail on [his motion for judgment as a matter of law or prior to trial on] summary judgment.”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.