256 F. Supp. 415 - Roberts v. Pepersack’s Empirical Analysis
1966
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently September 1990
2 federal appellate · 7 district · 3 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. § 241 (Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 242 · 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Mapp v. Ohio · Monroe v. Pape · Elkins v. United States · Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire · Screws v. United States
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 24 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““1. That the Plaintiff -has failed to exhaust available State remedies. “2. That the contentions set forth in the civil action are condusory in nature and fail to adequately allege any facts supporting the contentions. “3. That this Honorable Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter of the cause of action. “4. That this Honorable Court lacks jurisdiction over the person of one of the Defendants, the State of Maryland. “5. That the civil action as filed fails to set forth a claim upon which relief can be granted. “6. That the doctrine of judicial immunity apjplies herein, the Plaintiff hav ing been remanded to an institution under the jurisdiction of the Department of Correction pursuant to an Order of Court as a result of an emergency situation at the Baltimore City Jail which was a serious and immediate hazard to the health and safety of the inmates and employees of the Baltimore City Jail and the citizens of the City of Baltimore. A copy of the said Order of Court is attached hereto and made a part of this Motion to Dismiss.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any inhabitant of any State, Territory, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such inhabitant being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.” June 25, 1948, c. 645, 62 Stat. 696 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The measure of a citizen’s constitutional rights is not left to the determination of the community-at-large. It is determined by the courts. If that standard has not yet been enunciated by a court in a manner which makes its applicability to the incident at hand clear, the potential defendant cannot be expected to conform his conduct to it. Bowens v. Knazze, 237 F.Supp. 826, 829 (N.D.Ill.1965).”
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.