Stift v. Lynch’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

42 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““Under our decisions in Eaton v. Bibb, 7 Cir., 217 F.2d 446 , Miles v. Armstrong, 7-Cir., 207 F.2d 284 and United States ex rel. Atterbury v. Ragen, 7 Cir., 237 F.2d 953 , we hold the complaint herein did not state a claim under the Federal Civil Rights Act upon which relief could be granted against defendants Lynch and Eichholz. “Notice should be taken of Wakat v. Harlib, 7 Cir., 253 F.2d 59, 65 , wherein this court sustained a judgment against Chicago police officers who had unlawfully arrested a prisoner arid 'extorted a false confession. In that case we considered a written regulation having the force of law. This regulation required a different treatment for a class of persons designated as ‘well-known criminals.’ Because of this discrimination, the Wakat case can and should be distinguished from our earlier decisions héreinbefore cited. It is true that in the Wakat opinion there is language to indicate that even without discrimination against a class, the defendant officers would have been liable under the Civil Rights Act, This language was unnecessary for the decision of the case and was dictum, and cannot be held to overrule the earlier cases of this court which we follow in making this decision.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Monroe v. Pape · Swanson v. McGuire