No. 93-4122’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

61 district · 5 state decisions

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

1. “[f]irst, the "deprivation must be caused by the exercise of some right or privilege created by the State or by a rule of conduct imposed by the State or by a person for whom the state is responsible." Second, the private party must have "acted together with or...obtained significant aid from state officials or engaged in conduct 'otherwise attributable to the State.' "”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Silva v. U.S. Bank, Nat'l Assoc., Under the Pooling & Serv. Agreement Dated 1, 2007, Gsamp Trust 2007-Nci, Mortg. Pass-Through Certificates, Series 207, Nci, Paul King, Dist. Court Judge, in His Individual Capacity, David J. Stevens, Dist. Court Judge, in His Individual Capacity, 18TH Judicial Dist., Court of Colo. Arapahoe Cnty., Richard B. Caschette, Dist. Court Judge, in His Individual Capacity, Christine Duffy, Douglas Cnty. Pub. Tr., in Her Individual Capacity, Lawrence E. Castle, in His Corporate Capacity, Robert J. Hopp, in His Individual & Corporate Capacity, Mers Inc. · Jackson v. Curry Cnty.

2. “The applicable decisions clearly establish no bright-line rule for determining whether a symbiotic relationship exists between a government agency and a private entity. Questions as to how far the state has insinuated itself into the operations of a particular private entity and when, if ever, the operations of a private entity become indispensable to the state are matters of degree.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 10 F. Supp. 3d 1207 - Tapia v. City of Albuquerque · 973 F. Supp. 1228 - Anaya v. Crossroads Managed Care Systems, Inc.

3. “We have applied the joint action test in several cases involving allegations that private citizens acted in concert with police officers in making arrests. In both Carey v. Continental Airlines Inc., 823 F.2d 1402 (10th Cir.1987), and Lee v. Town of Estes Park, 820 F.2d 1112 (10th Cir.1987), we held that citizens who made complaints to police officers that resulted in arrests were not state actors. We found nothing in the record in either case from which we could infer that the allegedly unconstitutional arrests “resulted from any concerted action, whether conspiracy, prearranged plan, customary procedure, or policy that substituted the judgment of a private party for that of the police or allowed a private party to exercise state power.” Carey, 823 F.2d at 1404 . In both cases, the record indicated that the police officers had made an independent decision to make the challenged arrest. In contrast, in Lusby v. T.G. & Y. Stores, Inc., 749 F.2d 1423, 1429 (10th Cir.1984), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 818 , 106 S.Ct. 65 , 88 L.Ed.2d 53 (1985), we concluded that a store security guard who reported a suspected shoplifter to the police was a state actor. We noted that the officer that made the arrest did not make an independent investigation but relied on the judgment of the security guard. In Coleman v. Turpen, 697 F.2d 1341 (10th Cir.1982) (per curiam), we applied the joint action test by focusing on the manner in which the alleged constitutional deprivation was carried out. There, th”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 10 F. Supp. 3d 1207 - Tapia v. City of Albuquerque · 41 F. Supp. 3d 1027 - Herrera v. Santa Fe Public Schools