Brawer v. Horowitz’s Empirical Analysis
535 F.2d 830 · 1976
Citation profile
88 federal appellate · 21 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 208 later decisions (3 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2016 · most notably Briscoe v. W (1983), Kush v. Rutledge (1983)
88 federal appellate · 21 district · 7 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
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Haines v. Kerner · Imbler v. Pachtman · Roviaro v. United States · Griffin v. Breckenridge
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 208 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, freely, fully, and truthfully, or to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or to influence the verdict, presentment, or indictment of any grand or petit juror in any such court, or to injure such juror in his person or property on account of any verdict, presentment, or indictment lawfully assented to by him, or of his being or having been such juror ... [an action for damages will lie].”
19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“equal privileges and immunities under the laws.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Briscoe v. W · Bradt v. Smith““The first half of § 1985(2) aims at conspiracies the object of which is intimidation of or retaliation against parties or witnesses, or grand or petit jurors, in any court of the United States. The federal nexus, then, is not the class-based, invidiously discriminatory animus required by the second half of the subsection, but the connection of the proscribed activities to a federal court. Viewing the statute in this light and assuming appellants would seek to invoke this part, . the thrust of their argument must be that Horowitz and Maueeli ‘conspire[d] to . influence the verdict . or indictment of [the] grand or petit jur- or[s]’ by agreeing to use perjured testimony and to conceal exculpatory evidence. After careful consideration we have concluded that such a construction would be impermissibly generous. We understand the first part of § 1985(2) to concern itself with conspiratorial conduct that directly affects or seeks to affect parties, witnesses or grand or petit jurors. The allegations of this complaint are different in kind. At best, the allegation is that the conspiracy ‘influenced’ the jurors by precluding them from considering fully accurate evidence. We deem this ‘influence’ to be too remote to fit within the intended ambit of § 1985(2).””
3 later decisions 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.