25 Ill. App. 3d 291 - Alberty v. Daniel’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 2 district · 30 state decisions

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

1. “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Holmes v. Chicago Transit Authority · 117 Ill. App. 3d 656 - Beverly Bank v. Board of Review of Will County

2. ““* « * [Although the historical background and the congressional records as recited by the court [referring to Chamberlain v. Brown (Tenn. 1969), 442 S.W.2d 248, 252 ] pertinent to this legislation indicate that the statute creating the action was directed to the Federal trial forum, there is no evidence that the action was limited to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal courts. The provisions of 28 U.S.C. §1343 confer upon injured parties the right to maintain an action based on section 1983 in the Federal courts without the necessity of satisfying jurisdictional requirements of the diversity of citizenship and amount in controversy. The practical considerations as to pursuing relief in the federal or state courts are left to the individual litigants. We conclude that the courts of the State of Illinois have concurrent jurisdiction with the Federal courts to hear claims founded upon alleged violations of 42 U.S.C. §1983 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 63 Ill. App. 3d 477 - Bohacs v. Reid

3. “The principal purpose of the evaluation procedure is not to protect the rights of probationary employees, as plaintiff contends, but rather, to aid the department head in making a determination to either discharge or retain such employee.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gutierrez v. City of Chicago