Anderson v. Cornejo’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
1 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 42 U.S.C. § 1986 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 707 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Terry v. Ohio · Harlow v. Fitzgerald
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“There may be a significant savings of judicial and legal resources by jointly resolving the issues of whether plaintiffs were entitled to a judicial determination of their being held and whether they were entitled to be able to contact others. If liability is proven, many of the plaintiffs may not be entitled to a large amount of damages because not held for a lengthy period of time. Therefore, for those plaintiffs, a class action may be the most practical means for resolving these issues.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the inspector reached under Saffell's bra and under her underwear, examining Saffell's entire pubic area and inserting her finger in Saffell's vagina.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[f]ondling of a traveler's genital area, breasts, or buttocks area during a patdown would also constitute an intrusive patdown.”
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.