Anderson v. Nosser’s Empirical Analysis
438 F.2d 183 · 1971
Citation profile
109 federal appellate · 14 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 188 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2018 · most notably Butz v. Economou (1978), Procunier v. Navarette (1978)
109 federal appellate · 14 district · 10 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 Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Monroe v. Pape · Pierson v. Ray · Rochin v. People of California
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 188 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[p]unitive measure[ ] ... out of harmony with the presumption of innocence”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““The cruel and unusual punishment clause is a nonstatic, moral precept designed to curb treatment which offends contemporary standards of decency. Until the early part of this century, the ban on cruel and unusual punishment had been interpreted to apply only to outrageous and barbarous practices. See Generally Goldberg & Dershowitz, Declaring the Death Penalty Unconstitutional, 83 Harv.L.Rev. 1773 (1970); Note, The Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause and the Substantive Criminal Law, 79 Harv.L.Rev. 635 (1966). The concept has now expanded, but its precise boundaries are still unclear. Wilkerson v. Utah, 1878, 99 U.S. 130, 135-136 , 25 L.Ed. 345 (‘Difficulty would attend the effort to define with exactness the extent of the constitutional provision which provides that cruel and unusual punishment shall not be inflicted. * * *’); Trop v. Dulles, 1958, 356. U.S. 86, 78 S.Ct. 590 , 2 L.Ed.2d 630 . Courts have relied upon such imprecise measures as the protection of ‘the dignity of man,’ Trop v. Dulles, supra, 356 U.S. at 100 , 78 S.Ct. 590 , or ‘developing concepts of elemental decency,’ Jordan v. Fitzharris, supra [D.C.], 257 F.Supp. [674] at 679.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent““. . . The state and federal claims must derive from a common nucleus of operative fact. But if, considered without regard to their federal or state character, a plaintiff’s claims are such that he would ordinarily be expected to try them all in one judicial proceeding, then, assuming ■substantiality of the federal issues, there is power in federal courts to hear the whole.” (Our emphasis.)”
2 later decisions 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.