Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 501 F.3d 920 - Baker v. Chisom

Baker v. Chisom’s Empirical Analysis

501 F.3d 920 · 2007

Citation profile

42
cited by 42 later decisions
4
states following
February 2025
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 9 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Veatch v. Bartels Lutheran Home (2010), Ballard v. Heineman (2008)

7 federal appellate · 9 district · 5 state decisions

300200720102020decided

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. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N. A. · Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla. · Hafer v. Melo · Board of Regents of Univ. of State of NY v. Tomanio

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

  1. “The doctrine of res judicata or claim preclusion bars relitigation of a § 1983 claim if the prior judgment was a final judgment on the merits rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction, and if the same cause of action and the same parties or their privies were involved.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “liability exposes public servants to civil liability and damages [and that] only an express statement that they are being sued in their individual capacity will suffice to give proper notice to the defendants.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “litigants wishing to sue government agents in both capacities should simply use the following language: `Plaintiff sues each and all defendants in both their individual and official capacities.'”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.