Carlson v. Green’s Empirical Analysis
1980
Citation profile
1,009 federal appellate · 418 district · 143 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 2,826 later decisions (74 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Farmer v. Brennan (1994), Berkemer v. McCarty (1984)
1,009 federal appellate · 418 district · 143 state decisions — followed in 29 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedBeard v. Robinson (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Estelle v. Gamble · Younger v. Harris
Cited together with Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Davis v. Passman · Bush v. Lucas · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Schweiker v. Chilicky
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 2,826 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“special factors counselling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress.”
129 later decisions quote this exact passage“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.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The Federal Tort Claims Act is not a federal remedial scheme at all, but a waiver of sovereign immunity that permits an injured claimant to recover damages against the United States where a private person “would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.” 28 U.S.C. § 1346 (b); see also 28 U.S.C. § 2674 .”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.