Priester v. Lowndes County’s Empirical Analysis
354 F.3d 414 · 2004
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 110 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2025 · most notably Kohler v. Englade (2006), Bowlby v. City of Aberdeen (2012)
18 federal appellate · 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. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Joshua Deshaney, a Minor, by His Guardian Ad Litem, and Melody Deshaney,s v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, et al. · Yohey v. Collins · Cinel v. Connick · Doe v. Taylor Independent School District
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 110 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the plaintiff must show: (1) that the deprivation was caused by the exercise of some right or privilege created by the state or by a rule of conduct imposed by the state, or by a person for whom the state is responsible, and (2) that the party charged with the deprivation may fairly be said to be a state actor.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]o state a claim of racial discrimination under the Equal Protection Clause and section 1983, the plaintiff 'must allege that [ (1) he or she] received treatment different from that received by similarly situated individuals and that [ (2) ] the unequal treatment stemmed from a discriminatory intent.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A discriminatory purpose `implies that the decision maker singled out a particular group for disparate treatment and selected his course of action at least in part for the purpose of causing its adverse effect on an identifiable group.',”
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.