Thomas v. Stalter’s Empirical Analysis
20 F.3d 298 · 1994
Citation profile
15 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably DeWalt v. Carter (2000), Outlaw v. Newkirk (2001)
15 federal appellate · 5 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 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Whitley v. Albers · Hudson v. McMillian · Hanrahan v. Hampton · McNamara v. County of San Diego Department of Social Services · Oneida Motor Freight, Inc. v. United Jersey
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to Mr. Thomas, Officer Heath hit Mr. Thomas in the mouth with a clenched fist while Mr. Thomas was held immobilized by at least nine other people. A punch in the face to subdue Mr. Thomas was not necessary to carry out the court order. The apparent lack of reason for the blow, the fact that Heath used a clenched fist, the fact that Heath then said “shut up” can be interpreted reasonably as establishing that Heath’s action was not a “good-faith effort to maintain or restore discipline,” but rather was done “maliciously and sadistically to cause harm.” See also Hill, 992 F.2d at 717-18 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We agree that the jury’s finding of liability is in irreconcilable conflict with its award of zero damages. One of the court’s instructions specifically required the jury to find damages before it could find liability. Given this instruction, the jury’s finding of liability implies that it also found that Heath proximately caused injury to Mr. Thomas. Nevertheless, the jury awarded Mr. Thomas no money damages.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. James v. Tilghman
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.