Bracey v. Herringa’s Empirical Analysis

466 F.2d 702 · 1972

Citation profile

cited by 46 later decisions

states following

February 2018

most recently cited

28 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably 141 Ill. 2d 40 - People v. Smith (1990), Coates v. Johnson & Johnson (1985)

28 federal appellate · 1 district · 6 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. § 1732 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Haines v. Kerner · Palmer v. Hoffman · Novak v. Beto · Hoffman v. Palmer · United States v. Ware

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

“the Act would cover any system of recording events or occurrences provided it was `regular' and though it had little or nothing to do with the management or operation of the business as such. * * * The probability of trustworthiness of records because they were routine reflections of the day to day operations of a business would be forgotten as the basis of the rule. [Citation.] Regularity of preparation would become the test rather than the character of the records and their earmarks of reliability [citation] acquired from their source and origin and the nature of their compilation.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Lewis v. Velez · Wassillie v. State
“[E]ven if memoranda such as the ones in question are regularly prepared by law enforcement officers, they lack the necessary earmarks of reliability and trustworthiness. Their source and the nature and manner of their compilation unavoidably dictate that they are inadmissible under [the hearsay exception for business records]. They are also subject to the objection that such utility as they possess relates primarily to prosecution of suspected law breakers, and only incidentally to the systematic conduct of the police business.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. 141 Ill. 2d 40 - People v. Smith · 88 F. Supp. 3d 927 - Pullen v. House
““That prison guards may be held accountable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for physical beatings of prisoners deprivation of medical care, or deprivation of hygienic conditions, has been established for enough years that it can safely be assumed at least some guards write their reports on such occurrences with that possibility in mind.” (Footnotes omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
e.g. Davis v. Schmidt · 141 Ill. 2d 40 - People v. Smith

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.