Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 540 F.2d 392 - Briscoe v. Bock

Briscoe v. Bock’s Empirical Analysis

540 F.2d 392 · 1976

Citation profile

50
cited by 50 later decisions
7
states following
June 2011
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 7 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably Downs v. Sawtelle (1978), 156 Wis. 2d 165 - Fletcher v. Eagle River Memorial Hospital, Inc. (1990)

17 federal appellate · 7 district · 9 state decisions

22019761980199020002010decided

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 United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co. · Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority · Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis · New York Stock Exchange v. Legate

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

  1. “no such nexus between the state's relationship to the Hospital's operation and the dismissal of the plaintiff as to justify attribution of the challenged action of the Hospital to the state.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[tjhere is no question that when those in charge of the affairs of a public hospital deal with staff members ... the dealings must conform to the requirements and prohibitions of the fourteenth amendment. And, if the authorities of a public hospital, acting under color of law, deprive a person of a federally protected right, he may seek redress under § 1983.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “if the district court (has) no jurisdiction with respect to the federal claim asserted by plaintiff it (has) no jurisdiction of the pendent claim,”
    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.