Robinson v. Davis’s Empirical Analysis
447 F.2d 753 · 1971
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Gibson v. City of Chicago (1990), Revene v. Charles County Commissioners (1989)
14 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 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 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Screws v. United States · Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority · United States v. Classic · Marsh v. State of Alabama · Amalgamated Food Employees Union Local 590 v. Logan Valley Plaza, 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“for 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 purposes when they requested that students attend a college administrative hearing because, although wearing their official police uniforms, the plaintiffs-students summoned by the security officers were cognizant that those individuals were fellow students acting as security officers. Insofar as the municipality was concerned, the court held that”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. D.T., a Minor, by His Legally Appointed Guardians M.T. And K.T. In Their Own Behalf as Parents and Legal Guardians of D.T. F.H., Jr. A Minor, by His Legally Appointed Guardians F.H. And L.T., in Their Own Behalf as Parents and Legal Guardians of F.H. P.M., a Minor, by His Legally Appointed Guardian R.T., in Her Own Behalf as Parent and Legal Guardian of P.M. v. Independent School District No. 16 of Pawnee County, Oklahoma · Dt Mt Kt Dt v. Independent School District No of Pawnee County Oklahoma“We are not dealing here with a case where an officer not authorized to act nevertheless takes action. Here the state officers were authorized to make an arrest and to take such steps as were necessary to make the arrest effective. They acted without authority only in the sense that they used excessive force in making the arrest effective. It is clear that un der “color” of law means under “pretense” of law. Thus acts of officers in the ambit of their personal pursuits are plainly excluded. Acts of officers who undertake to perform their official duties are included whether they hew to the line of their authority or overstep it. If, as suggested, the statute was designed to embrace only action which the State in fact authorized, the words “under color of any law” were hardly apt words to express the idea.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lawson v. Wiggins“[m]isuse of power, possessed by virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of state law, is action taken 'under color of' state law.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brown v. Turner
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.