Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 430 F.2d 190 - Arensman v. Brown

Arensman v. Brown’s Empirical Analysis

430 F.2d 190 · 1970

Citation profile

22
cited by 22 later decisions
February 1993
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently February 1993

15 federal appellate · 2 district ·

150197019801990decided

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. § 2283 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Dombrowski v. Pfister · Stefanelli v. Minard · Hoffman v. Halden · William J. Bauers, Jr. v. Herbert T. Heisel, Jr · Whirl v. Kern

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

  1. ““For even if the power to grant the relief here sought may fairly and constitutionally be derived from the generality of language of the Civil Rights Act, to sustain the claim would disregard the power of courts of equity to exercise discretion when, in a matter of equity jurisdiction, the balance is against the wisdom of using their power. Here the considerations governing that discretion touch perhaps the most sensitive source of friction between States and Nation, namely the active intrusion of the federal courts in the administration of the criminal law for the prosecution of crimes solely within the power of the States.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]he failure of a jailor or keeper to release a prisoner held on a warrant or commitment cannot be the basis for a civil rights action regardless of allegations of malice, motive or intent. His act is required by law ... so long as he acted under authority of the writ or warrant, he was performing a duty which the law at that time required him to perform.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.