Gates v. Collier’s Empirical Analysis
489 F.2d 298 · 1973
Citation profile
43 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 72 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2003 · most notably Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society (1975), Gates v. Collier (1974)
43 federal appellate · 4 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 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985
Relies on Hans v. State of Louisiana · Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co. · Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. · Ohio v. Kentucky · Lincoln County v. Luning
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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the instant case, we have no difficulty in finding that defendants’ actions were unreasonable and obdurately obstinate. From commencement of the suit on February 8, 1971, defendants staunchly denied the existence of unconstitutional practices and conditions at Parchman. Defendants continued to adhere to this position at several lengthy evidentiary hearings of an interlocutory nature. The position thus consistently maintained by defendants compelled plaintiffs’ attorney to expend time and expenses which otherwise would have not been incurred. Consequently, in preparation of plaintiffs’ case, plaintiffs’ attorney engaged in extensive pre-trial discovery, made numerous trips to Parch-man, interviewed hundreds of inmates, and submitted a plethora of motions and accompanying legal memoranda. We are convinced that only because of the overwhelming magnitude of evidence gathered by plaintiffs’ attorney in cooperation with the Department of Justice in support of the allegations contained in the complaint did defendants in effect recognize the futility of a full evidentiary hearing and submit the ease on á virtually agreed record.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Miller v. Carson““This Court has said that in such a suit as this the award of attorney’s fees is not an award of damages against the State, even, though funds for payment of the costs may come from the state appropriations. * -» * * * * “Although the trial court had the power to assess attorney’s fees and expenses against the individual defendants found to have engaged in the unconstitutional conduct, we think it does not vitiate the award because the trial court prescribed that this part of the costs were to be payable ‘from funds which the Mississippi Legislature, at its 1973 Session, may appropriate for the operation of the Mississippi State Penitentiary,’ and were not to be ‘the personal, or individual, liability of the varied defendants or any of them.’ ” Id. at 302 (footnote omitted).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““. . .in such a suit as this the award of attorney’s fees is not an award of damages against the State, even though funds for payment of the costs may come from the state appropriations.” 489 F.2d at 302 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Welsch v. Likins
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.