Franklin v. Fox’s Empirical Analysis
312 F.3d 423 · 2002
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 10 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably Lacey v. Maricopa County (2012), Broam v. Bogan (2003)
16 federal appellate · 10 district · 2 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Illinois v. Gates · Anderson v. Creighton
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Furthermore, to the extent that Franking aims to hold his daughter responsible for [District Attorney] Murray’s facilitation of the visit or trial prosecutor Tipton’s use of his jailhouse silence against him at trial, his claim fails. In order for a private individual to be liable for a § 1983 violation when a state actor commits the challenged conduct, the plaintiff must establish that the private individual was the proximate cause of the violation .... Arnold ... is instructive. There a task force including law enforcement officials, the district attorney, and an IBM security manager investigated trade secret leaks from within IBM. After his arrest and indictment and the search of his home, the plaintiff sued IBM under § 1983 based on his involvement with the investigation. We held that, although IBM provided the task force with its security manager, information, funding, and grand jury witnesses, the company was not the proximate cause of the plaintiffs injuries because it did not direct the task force to take action against him .... Here, there is no evidence that Murray and Tipton were under Franklin-Lipsker’s control or that they failed to exercise their own independent judgment when they violated Franklin’s rights. Murray’s response to Franklin-Lipsker’s request for help to visit her father and to offer her advise as to the advisability of a visit did not turn FranklinLipsker into a facilitator or a cause of the state’s violation. With respect to the violation at trial”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“so far insinuated itself into a position of interdependence with [the private entity] that it must be recognized as a joint participant in the challenged activity.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The joint action test asks whether state officials and private parties have acted in concert in effecting a particular deprivation of constitutional rights.”
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.