Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 490 F.3d 1194 - Cardoso v. Calbone

Cardoso v. Calbone’s Empirical Analysis

490 F.3d 1194 · 2007

Citation profile

64
cited by 64 later decisions
1
states following
April 2022
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 14 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably Gee v. Pacheco (2010), Couch v. Jabe (2012)

6 federal appellate · 14 district · 1 state decisions

540200720102020decided

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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Wolff v. McDonnell · Heck v. Humphrey · Sandin v. Conner · Edwards v. Balisok · Hall v. Bellmon

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

  1. “must go beyond the pleadings and designate specific facts to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to his case in order to survive summary judgment.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[e]vidence, including testimony, must be based on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or surmise,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Unsubstantiated allegations carry no probative weight in summary judgment proceedings.”
    1 later decision 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.