William D. Arnold v. Bert R. Tiffany’s Empirical Analysis
487 F.2d 216 · 1974
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 15 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably Robert C. Hahn v. Francis W. Sargent (1975), James H. McLellan v. Mississippi Power & Light Company, International Brotherhood of Electricalworkers, Local 605 Electrical Workers (1977)
35 federal appellate · 15 district ·
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. § 294 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985
Relies on Griswold v. State of Connecticut · Griffin v. Breckenridge · National Association for Advancement of Colored People v. State of Alabama Patterson · De Jonge v. Oregon · United States v. Guest
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 96 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““[t]he language requiring intent to deprive equal protection, or equal privileges and immunities, means that there must be some racial or perhaps otherwise class-based, invidiously discriminating animus behind the conspirators’ action. The conspiracy, in other words, must aim at a deprivation of the equal enjoyment of rights secured by the law to all.” 403 U.S. at 102 , 91 S.Ct. at 1798 .”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“irrational and odious class discrimination akin to racial bias-such as discrimination based on national origin or religion.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““The action of the defendants was directed at the plaintiffs as individuals because they were engaged in attempting to photograph them (the defendants) and their activities on that particular occasion, not because of any animus against them as members of some class or race. There is no averment in the complaint that the defendants attacked the plaintiffs because the latter were environmentalists . ; the allegations of the complaint are specific that the assault was sparked solely by the instant reaction of the defendants to the fact that the plaintiffs were seeking to photograph the defendants, clearly for the purpose of prosecuting them under the Refuse Act. Theirs was a. purely spontaneous act, not alleged to be a part of any general pattern of discriminatory action directed to any class, as was the situation in Action v. Gannon [ 450 F.2d 1227 (8th Cir. 1971).]” [Id. at 10.]”
2 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.