Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 281 F.3d 661 - Green v. Benden

Green v. Benden’s Empirical Analysis

281 F.3d 661 · 2002

Citation profile

47
cited by 47 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
December 2016
most recently cited

13 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985

Relies on Younger v. Harris · Middlesex County Ethics Committee v. Garden State Bar Ass'n · Pennzoil Company v. Texaco Inc · Ohio Civil Rights Commission v. Dayton Christian Schools, Inc. · Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. Hodory

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

  1. “To establish a claim for civil conspiracy under § 1985(3), a plaintiff must demonstrate (1) the existence of a conspiracy, (2) a purpose of depriving a person or class of persons of equal protection of the laws, (3) an act in furtherance of a conspiracy, and (4) an injury to person or property or a deprivation of a right or privilege granted to U.S. citizens. Hernandez v. Joliet Police Dep’t, 197 F.3d 256, 263 (7th Cir.1999). The plaintiff also must show some racial, or otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators’ actions, and that the conspiracy aimed at interfering with rights that are protected against private, as well as official, encroachment. Majeske v. Fraternal Order of Police, Local Lodge No. 7, 94 F.3d 307, 311 (7th Cir.1996). To establish the existence of a conspiracy, a plaintiff must show that the conspirators agreed to inflict injury upon him; in other words, that they acted with a single plan, the general nature and scope of which was known to each conspirator. Hernandez, 197 F.3d at 263 . Agreement may be inferred from circumstantial evidence, but only if it is sufficient to permit a reasonable jury to conclude that a meeting of the minds had occurred and that the parties had an understanding to achieve the conspiracy’s objectives. Id.”
    2 later decisions 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.