Williams v. Rodriguez’s Empirical Analysis
509 F.3d 392 · 2007
Citation profile
36 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 106 later decisions — most recently September 2022 · most notably Gayton v. McCoy (2010), Thomas v. Cook County Sheriff's Department (2009)
36 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 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. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Whren v. United States · Duncan v. Walker · SAUCIER v. KATZ Et Al. · Devenpeck v. Alford · Atwater v. City of Lago Vista
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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Neither a local public entity nor a public employee is liable for injury proximately caused by the failure of the employee to furnish or obtain medical care for a prisoner in his custody; but this Section shall not apply where the employee, acting within the scope of his employment, knows from his observation of conditions that the prisoner is in need of immediate medical care and, through willful and wanton conduct, fails to take reasonable action to summon medical care.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“As a general matter, when all federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial, the federal court should relinquish jurisdiction over the remaining pendant state claims”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Williams brought this deliberate indifference claim against Officer Rodriguez and an unknown and unnamed Chicago police officer. In his complaint, Williams stated that he would seek leave to amend his complaint once he learned the identity of this unknown and unnamed defendant. Discovery was Williams’s opportunity to identify this defendant, and he failed to do so before discovery closed on August 18, 2006. Due to Williams’s failure to identify this defendant and the lack of any record that this individual was served with process, the district court’s grant of summary judgment for this unknown and unnamed defendant is modified to dismiss this defendant from the case.”
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.