Hampton v. Hanrahan’s Empirical Analysis
1981
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently May 2005 · most notably Hill v. Shelander (1991), Woods v. Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis (1993)
7 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 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 28 U.S.C. § 2671 · 28 U.S.C. § 2675 · 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. § 2000E (§ 703 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Edelman v. Jordan · Monroe v. Pape · United States v. Testan
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) the claim asserted in the amended complaint arises out of the same conduct, transaction, or occurrence set forth ... in the original pleading; 2) the party being added by the amendment received notice of the institution of the action within the time period specified in Federal Rule I(m) ... and that the new party will not be prejudiced in maintaining a defense on the merits; and 3) the party being added to the litigation knew or should have known that the action would have been brought against him or her but for a mistake as to the identity of the proper party.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the basic claim must have arisen out of the conduct set forth in the original pleading; (2) the party to be brought in must have received such notice that it will not be prejudiced in maintaining its defense; (3) that party must or should have known that, but for a mistake concerning identity, the action would have been brought against it; and (4) the second and third requirements must have been fulfilled within the prescribed limitations period.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“ensure [s] that the statute of limitations is not used mechanically to prevent adjudication of claims where a real party in interest was sufficiently alerted to the proceedings, or was involved in them in a practical sense from an early stage.”
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.