Hoffman v. Halden’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

200 federal appellate · 51 district · 22 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 390 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “set forth with certainty facts showing particularly what a defendant or defendants did to carry the conspiracy into effect, whether such acts fit within the framework of the conspiracy alleged, and whether such acts, in the ordinary course of events, would proximately cause injury to the plaintiff.”

   59 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ashelman v. Pope · Sands v. Arizona Department of Corrections

2. ““What we have here is not a conspiracy to affect in any way these plaintiffs’ equality of protection by the law, or their equality of privileges and immunities under the law. There is not the slightest allegation that defendants were conscious of or trying to influence the law, or were endeavoring to obstruct or interfere with it. The only inequality suggested is that the defendants broke up plaintiffs’ meeting and did not break up meetings of others with whose sentiments they agreed. To be sure, this is not equal injury, but it is no more a deprivation of ‘equal protection’ or of ‘equal privileges and immunities’ than it would be for one to assault one neighbor without assaulting them all, or to libel some persons without mention of others. Such private discrimination is not inequality before the law unless there is some manipulation of the law or its agencies to give sanction or sanctuary for doing so." (Emphasis added.)”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 459 F. Supp. 347 - Selzer v. Berkowitz

3. ““(1) that defendants conspired, “(2) that the purpose of the conspiracy was to impede or hinder, or obstruct or defeat the due course of justice in a state or territory; “(3) with the purposeful intent to deny to a citizen the equal protection of the law [the requirement that the discrimination be purposeful is added by Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U.S. 1 , 64 S.Ct. 397 , 88 L.Ed. 497 (1944)], and “(4) that the acts complained of were done under color of state law or authority [the requirement that the acts be done under color of state law or authority stems from Collins v. Hardyman, 341 U.S. 651 , 71 S.Ct. 937 , 95 L.Ed. 1253 (1951)] “(5) (the requirement of § 1985 (3), Title 42 U.S.C.A.) that by acts done in furtherance of the conspiracy the plaintiff was injured in his person or property or was deprived of having and exercising a right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 202 F. Supp. 624 - Rhodes v. Houston