Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 559 F.2d 274 - Brown v. Culpepper

Brown v. Culpepper’s Empirical Analysis

559 F.2d 274 · 1977

Citation profile

146
cited by 146 later decisions
3
states following
August 2006
most recently cited

65 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 146 later decisions — most recently August 2006 · most notably Larry Nadeau v. Raymond A. Helgemoe, Warden, New Hampshire State Prison (1978), Copeland v. Marshall (1979)

65 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions

9401977198019902000decided

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 Isbell Enterprises, Inc. v. Citizens Casualty Co. of New York · Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. · Carter v. Jury Commission of Greene County · Parham v. Southwestern Bell Telephone Co.

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

  1. “(i)n any action or proceeding to enforce * * * sections 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985 and 1986 of this title,”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “parties may be considered to have prevailed when they vindicate rights through a consent judgment or without formally obtaining relief.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. ““In any action or proceeding to enforce a provision of sections 1981, 1982, 1983, 1985, and 1986 of this title, title IX of Public Law 92-318, or in any civil action or proceeding, by or on behalf of the United States of America, to enforce, or charging a violation of, a provision of the United States Internal Revenue Code, or title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the court, in its discretion, may allow the prevailing party, other than the United States, a reasonable attorney’s fee as part of the costs.”
    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.