Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 539 F.2d 1143 - Harley v. Oliver

Harley v. Oliver’s Empirical Analysis

539 F.2d 1143 · 1976

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
2
states following
August 2000
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently August 2000 · most notably Elliott v. Perez (1985), Gorman Towers, Inc. v. Bogoslavsky (1980)

16 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions

2101976198019902000decided

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. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985

Relies on Pierson v. Ray · Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority · United States v. Price · Atlas Roofing Co. v. Occupational Safety & Health Review Commission · Illinois Power Co. v. Local Union No. 51, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

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

  1. “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “A judge does not act at his peril in the exercise of his jurisdiction. Even if Judge Taylor’s custody order of January 9 was in error, which we do not decide, it clearly resulted from the exercise of his statutory jurisdiction. Id. at 1145 .”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.