Monroe v. Pape’s Empirical Analysis
272 F.2d 365 · 1959
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 13 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 1983
7 federal appellate · 1 district ·
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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 42 U.S.C. § 1986
Relies on Wakat v. Harlib · Stift v. Lynch · United States v. Orman · United States ex rel. Atterbury v. Ragen · Miles v. Armstrong
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The ultimate issue before us is whether the alleged misconduct on the part of city police officers of a state municipality makes a sufficient showing of a violation of the Federal Civil Rights Act. “This question is not new to this -court and has been resolved adversely to plaintiffs’ contentions. The most recent decision is that of Stift v. Lynch, 7 Cir., 1959, 267 F.2d 237 . In Stift, recovery was sought under the same three sections of the Act as in the instant case. Named as defendants were a sheriff and deputy sheriff, in addition to a Justice of the Peace and the State’s Attorney and his assistant. The dismissal of the complaint as to all defendants was affirmed. In sustaining the dismissal as to the sheriff and his deputy, the court said: “ ‘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.’ Id., 267 F.2d at page 240 . “Stift distinguishes Wakat v. Harlib, 7 Cir., 1958, 253 F.2d 59 . See also, Jennings v. Nester, 7 Cir., 1955, 207 F.2d 153 . “We do not condone the alleged misconduct of defendants, if true, but that is not the question before us. Under the holding, in Stift v„ Lynch, supra, and the other decisions of this circuit referred to therein, some of which are cited above, af-firmance ”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Swanson v. McGuire“[S]ince the liability of the City of Chicago is based on the doctrine of respondeat superior, and since I have already held that the complaint fails to state a claim for relief against the agents of the city, there is no claim for relief against the city itself.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.