Brazier v. Cherry’s Empirical Analysis
293 F.2d 401 · 1961
Citation profile
118 federal appellate · 11 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 232 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2017 · most notably Moor v. County of Alameda (1973), Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc. (1969)
118 federal appellate · 11 district · 10 state decisions
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
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Monroe v. Pape · Screws v. United States · Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen · Securities & Exchange Commission v. C. M. Joiner Leasing Corp.
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 232 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of said civil or criminal case is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the clause____”
10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"... From a federal standpoint the only limitation upon the use of such adoptive state legislation, rule or decision is that it is suitable to carry the law into effect because other available direct federal legislation is not adapted to that object or is deficient in furnishing a fully effective redress...." (Footnotes omitted.) 293 F.2d at 405-407, 409 .”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“it defies history to conclude that Congress purposely meant to assure to the living freedom from such unconstitutional deprivations, but that, with like precision, it meant to withdraw the protection of civil rights statutes against the peril of death.”
6 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.