544 F. Supp. 1069 - Brewster v. Dukakis’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently October 2010
4 federal appellate · 5 district · 2 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. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000A
Relies on Christiansburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission · Youngberg v. Romeo Ex Rel. Romeo · Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. · White v. New Hampshire Department of Employment Security · Hanrahan v. Hampton
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“This argument might carry weight if the litigation had indeed ended on December 7, 1978. However, the plaintiffs and defendants have had an intimate and unbroken relationship since 1976. Despite the Consent Decree, in essential respects, the negotiations, monitoring and litigation have unfolded continuously from the initiation of the suit to the present ... The Court finds that the defendants have not suffered any significant prejudice as a result of the timing of filing the attorney’s application.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Despite the use of the term 'monitoring' the activities of plaintiffs' counsel have not duplicated those of the court-appointed Monitor. The Monitor evaluates services under the Decree, resolves minor disputes, attempts to mediate major disputes, makes suggestions for implementation and submits reports to the Court. He does not have direct responsibility for insuring implementation of the Decree or advocating on behalf of plaintiff class members.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Brewster v. Dukakis
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.