Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 367 F.3d 694 - Hileman v. Maze

Hileman v. Maze’s Empirical Analysis

367 F.3d 694 · 2004

Citation profile

25
cited by 25 later decisions
August 2022
most recently cited

13 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Evans v. City of Chicago (2006), Savory v. Lyons (2006)

13 federal appellate ·

130200420102020decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 1973I (§ 11 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Wilson v. Garcia · Carey v. Piphus · Delaware State College v. Ricks · Memphis Community School District v. Stachura · Chardon v. Fernandez

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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “First, a court must identify the injury. Next, it must determine the date on which the plaintiff could have sued for that injury.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Section 1983 claims `accrue when the plaintiff knows or should know that his or her constitutional rights have been violated.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “That date should coincide with the date the plaintiff 'knows or should know' that her rights were violated.”
    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.