Duzynski v. Nosal’s Empirical Analysis
324 F.2d 924 · 1963
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently March 2010 · most notably McLaughlin v. Tilendis (1968), Briley v. California (1977)
22 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 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. § 1332 (Class Action Fairness Act of 2005) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Monroe v. Pape · Skibs A/S Jolund v. American Smelting & Refining Co. · Michael Cohen v. Russell K. Norris · Picking v. Pennsylvania R. · 202 F. Supp. 624 - Rhodes v. Houston
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.
““Section 1983 has been held to apply solely and exclusively to acts by state officers who use their authority, or misuse it, or purport to use their authority (although, in fact, acting outside their official function) to deprive a person of federally protected rights. Private persons, although they may in fact deprive another person of federally protected rights, are not liable under § 1983.” (citing Duzynski) .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““We think it is hardly open to dispute but that Reines, while a clerk of the court, acted not in his official position but as a private citizen in signing the petition. Likewise, Skorodin, while an employee of the Cook County Mental Health Clinic, examined plaintiff and certified to her mental illness not as a county official but in his capacity as a private physician.””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is alleged that these lay defendants engaged in a conspiracy . . .. The complaint, when stripped of its conclusory and irrelevant allegations, taken in connection with the exhibits attached to it, in our judgment states no action upon which relief could be granted . . ..”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sparkman v. McFarlin
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.