Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 372 F.2d 573 - Mansell v. Saunders

Mansell v. Saunders’s Empirical Analysis

372 F.2d 573 · 1967

Citation profile

70
cited by 70 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
September 1985
most recently cited

40 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 70 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 1985 · most notably Carey v. Piphus (1978), Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc. (1975)

40 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions

330196719701980decided

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. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985

Relies on Bell v. Hood · Hurn v. Oursler · Basista v. Weir · Ex parte Collins · Rorick v. Board of Comm'rs of Everglades Drainage Dist.

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

  1. ““The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action authorized by law to be commenced by any person: (1) To recover damages for injury to his person or property, or because of the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, by any act done in furtherance of any conspiracy mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42; (2) To recover damages from any person who fails to prevent or to aid in preventing any wrongs mentioned in section 1985 of Title 42 which he had knowledge were about to occur and power to prevent; (3) To redress the deprivation, under color of any State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution of the United States or by any Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens or of all persons within the jurisdiction of the United States; (4) To recover damages or to secure equitable or other relief under any Act of Congress providing for the protection of civil rights, including the right to vote.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other' person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““We hold that appellants stated causes of action under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 . This statute embraces deprivation or (sic) both due process of law and equal protection of the laws, and the action charged was under color of state law. * * * It contemplates such deprivation through the unconstitutional application of a law by a conspiracy or otherwise.””
    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.