Carter v. Simpson’s Empirical Analysis
328 F.3d 948 · 2003
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on County of Sacramento v. Lewis · Smith v. Lamz · Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund v. Kroger Company · 308 Ill. App. 3d 553 - Young v. Forgas · Schaefer v. Goch
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 13 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““And given the disagreement between Young and Hampton, we disagree with [the defendant] that his conduct, when construing the evidence in [the plaintiffs] favor, as a matter of law could not qualify as ‘conscious disregard.’ We conclude that a reasonable jury could find such conduct willful and wanton. Therefore, the district court erred in granting summary judgment on this claim.” Carter, 328 F.3d at 952 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although [the officer] was not engaged in a highspeed chase (as in Lewis ), he was responding to an emergency call. Because there was no evidence that he intended to cause any harm, the district court correctly granted summary judgment for [the officer].”
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.