Seeley v. Chase’s Empirical Analysis
443 F.3d 1290 · 2006
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on United States v. Castillo · United States v. Enjady · United States v. Guardia · United States v. Holland · United Phosphorus Ltd Inventa Corporation v. Midland Fumigant Inc
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) how clearly the prior act has been proved; 2) how probative the evidence is of the material fact it is admitted to prove; 3) how seriously disputed the material fact is; and 4) whether the government can avail itself of any less prejudicial evidence. When analyzing the probative dangers, a court considers: 1) how likely is it such evidence will contribute to. an improperly-based jury verdict; 2) the extent to. which, such evidence will distract the jury from the central issues of the trial; and 3) how time consuming it will be to prove the prior conduct.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1)any conduct proscribed by chapter 109A of title 18, United States Code; (2) contact, without consent, between any part of the defendant’s body or an object and. the genitals or anus of another person; (3) contact, without consent, between the genitals or anus of the defendant and any part of another person’s body; (4) deriving sexual pleasure or gratification from the infliction of death, bodily injury, or physical pain on another person; or (5) an attempt or conspiracy to engage in conduct described in paragraphs (D-(4).”
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.