Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 286 F.3d 452 - Purze v. Village of Winthrop Harbor

Purze v. Village of Winthrop Harbor’s Empirical Analysis

286 F.3d 452 · 2002

Citation profile

96
cited by 96 later decisions
4
states following
August 2023
most recently cited

40 federal appellate · 11 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably Clubside, Inc. v. Valentin (2006), Neilson v. Anthony D'Angelis (2005)

40 federal appellate · 11 district · 5 state decisions

650200220102020decided

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.

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Village of Willowbrook v. Olech · United Mine Workers of America Health & Retirement Funds v. Robinson · Radue v. Kimberly-Clark Corp. · Ciechon v. City of Chicago

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

  1. “In order to succeed, the [plaintiffs] must demonstrate that they were treated differently than someone who is prima facie identical in all relevant respects.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “where the plaintiff alleges that she has been intentionally treated differently from others similarly situated and that there is no rational basis for the difference in treatment.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “we could not agree more, and the district court was correct in determining that Maulding had not introduced any evidence of similarly situated developers. Therefore, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court. Notes: 1 This decision of the district court is not before us, as the City did not appeal 2 Maulding makes no mention of the”
    1 later decision 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.