Stagman v. Ryan’s Empirical Analysis
176 F.3d 986 · 1999
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Perez v. Volvo Car Corp. (2001), Smith v. Bray (2012)
30 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
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 · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle
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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In opposition to the defendants' motions for summary judgment, Stagman cannot rely upon statements in Morgan's affidavit that fail to meet the requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e). Specifically, Rule 56(e) states that `[s]upporting and opposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein.' Thus, statements outside the affiant's personal knowledge or statements that are the result of speculation or conjecture or merely conclusory do not meet this requirement.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“held that to establish joint action, a plaintiff must demonstrate that the public and private actors shared a common, unconstitutional goal. In other words, a plaintiff must establish that a conspiracy, or an understanding, to violate the plaintiffs constitutional rights existed between the public and private actors.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the record contains no evidence upon which the court could have rationally based its decision; (2) the decision is based on an erroneous conclusion of law; (3) the decision is based on clearly erroneous factual findings; or (4) the decision clearly appears arbitrary.”
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.