Reeve v. Oliver’s Empirical Analysis
41 F.3d 381 · 1994
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions — most recently August 2016
8 federal appellate · 1 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Hishon v. King & Spalding · Bell v. Hood · Gomez v. Toledo · Ames v. Sundance State Bank
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 19 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Reeve] has failed to allege a constitutional violation. Though Oliver's alleged conduct may have been improper, it does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation. Reeve's arguments that she was somehow deprived of her Fourteenth Amendment rights of privacy, liberty, and equal protection are without merit. As we stated in Gregory v. City of Rogers, 974 F.2d 1006, 1009 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, [ 507 U.S. 913 ], 113 S.Ct. 1265 , 122 L.Ed.2d 661 (1993), "Many harms, though caused by a state actor, do not fall within the scope of section 1983, for section 1983 does not turn the Fourteenth Amendment into a font of tort law that supersedes the tort systems already available under individual state laws." Reeve must look to state law for a remedy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hart v. Miller“Unless a complaint is frivolous on its face, a colorable allegation of a federal right suffices to establish arising-under jurisdiction, regardless of whether, ultimately, a federal cause of action is found.”). The federal question pled in the Amended Complaint in this case is neither”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Many harms, though caused by a state actor, do not fall within the scope of section 1983, for section 1983 does not turn the Fourteenth Amendment into a font of tort law that supersedes the tort systems already available under individual state laws.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hart v. Miller
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.