Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 549 F.2d 1287 - Sherman v. Yakahi

Sherman v. Yakahi’s Empirical Analysis

549 F.2d 1287 · 1977

Citation profile

80
cited by 80 later decisions
2
states following
September 2010
most recently cited

42 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently September 2010 · most notably Gibson v. United States (1986), Jones v. Community Redevelopment Agency of Los AngeLes (1984)

42 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions

44019771980199020002010decided

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. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866)

Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Estelle v. Gamble · Haines v. Kerner · Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroy

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

  1. “Conclusionary allegations, unsupported by facts, [will be] rejected as insufficient to state a claim under the Civil Rights Act.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “a pleading will not be sufficient to state a claim under the Civil Rights Act if the allegations are mere conclusions.”
    2 later decisions 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.