Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 47 F.3d 1370 - Simmons v. Poe

Simmons v. Poe’s Empirical Analysis

47 F.3d 1370 · 1995

Citation profile

113
cited by 113 later decisions
2
states following
April 2020
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 24 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 113 later decisions — most recently April 2020 · most notably Francis v. Giacomelli (2009), Hinkle v. City of Clarksburg (1996)

26 federal appellate · 24 district · 2 state decisions

4001995200020102020decided

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)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985

Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Illinois v. Gates · United States v. Leon · Franks v. Delaware · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle

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

  1. “(1) a conspiracy of two or more persons, (2) who are motivated by a specific class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus to (3) deprive the plaintiff of the equal enjoyment of rights secured by the law to all, (4) and which results in injury to the plaintiff as (5) a consequence of an overt act committed by the defendants in connection with the conspiracy.”
    25 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “an agreement or a 'meeting of the minds' by defendants to violate the claimant's constitutional rights.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “One or more members of a class may sue or be sued as representative parties on behalf of all only if (1) the class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defens es of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.”
    3 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.