Sims v. Blot’s Empirical Analysis
534 F.3d 117 · 2008
Citation profile
119 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 430 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably United States v. Rigas (2009), Manganiello v. City of New York (2010)
119 federal appellate · 7 district · 5 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)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1997E
Relies on Haines v. Kerner · Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp. · Upjohn Company v. United States · United States v. Nobles · Jaffee Special Administrator for Allen Deceased v. Redmond
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 430 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“base[s] its ruling on an erroneous view of the law or on a clearly erroneous assessment of the evidence, or render[s] a decision that cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In reality respondents simply seek to have the privilege breached whenever there is a possibility that the psychiatric records may be useful in testing the plaintiffs credibility or may have some other probative value. To accept these contentions would inject the balancing component that Jaffee foreclosed, and would disregard the principle that “[pjarties ... do not forfeit [a privilege] merely by taking a position that the evidence might contradict,” Salerno, 505 U.S. at 323 [ 112 S.Ct. 2503 , 120 L.Ed.2d 255 ]. If this principle were not the rule, then in virtually every case a forfeiture might be found, as in virtually every case the party opposing the privilege could argue that the psychological record might reveal evidence that the party asserting the privilege is testifying falsely.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“A district court errs procedurally when it fails to calculate (or improperly calculates) the Sentencing Guidelines range, treats the Sentencing Guidelines as mandatory, fails to consider the § 3553(a) factors, selects a sentence based on clearly erroneous facts, or fails adequately to explain the chosen sen-fence. A district court errs substantively if its sentence cannot be located within the range of permissible decisions. In reviewing the substantive reasonableness of a sentence, we take into account the totality of the circumstances, giving due deference to the sentencing judge’s exercise of discretion, and bearing in mind the institutional advantages of district courts.”
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.