Shaw v. Garrison’s Empirical Analysis
545 F.2d 980 · 1977
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2022 · most notably Robertson v. Wegmann (1978), Jones v. Hildebrant (1977)
20 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 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 26 U.S.C. § 152 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 33 U.S.C. § 908 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 45 U.S.C. § 59 (Federal Employers' Liability Act)
Relies on Monroe v. Pape · Bell v. Hood · Pierson v. Ray · Textile Workers v. Lincoln Mills of Ala. · J. I. Case Co. v. Borak
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“are deficient in the provisions necessary to furnish suitable remedies and punish offenses against law, the common law, as modified and changed by the constitution and statutes of the State wherein the court having jurisdiction of such civil or criminal cause is held, so far as the same is not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States, shall be extended to and govern the said courts in the trial and disposition of the cause, and, if it is of a criminal nature, in the infliction of punishment on the party found guilty.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“does not resolve the question [of] what law of survival of actions should be applied in this case. [It] simply describes the manner in which parties are to be substituted in federal court once it is determined that the applicable substantive law allows the action to survive a party's death.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Robertson v. Wegmann
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.