Torres Ocasio v. Melendez’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 12 district ·

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

1. “[T]his second element of causal connection requires that the plaintiff establish: (1) for each defendant, that the defendant’s own actions deprived the plaintiff of his/her protected rights, Monell v. Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 , 694 n. 58, 98 S.Ct. 2018 , 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978); Gutierrez-Rodriguez, 882 F.2d at 562 ; Figueroa v. Aponte-Roque, 864 F.2d 947, 953 (1st Cir.1989); and (2) that the defendant’s conduct was intentional, Simmons v. Dickhaut, 804 F.2d 182, 185 (1st Cir.1986), grossly negligent, or amounted to a recklessor callous indifference to the plaintiffs constitutional rights. See Gutierrez-Rodriguez, 882 F.2d at 562 . (Emphasis in the original).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Velazquez-Ortiz v. Negron-Fernandez

2. “In addition, in order for D’Amario’s complaint to be legally cognizable, and state a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (2) or (3), he must allege that there was “some racial or perhaps otherwise class-based invidiously discriminatory animus behind the conspirators’ action.” The First Circuit has interpreted that ruling to require a plaintiff to show the following: (1) that he is a member of a class readily recognizable and traditionally protected by the Civil Rights Act; (2) that the defendants conspired to deprive him of equal protection rights because of his membership in that class; and (3) the criteria defining the class were invidious.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 440 F. Supp. 2d 81 - Wilson v. Moreau