Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 56 F.3d 669 - Fontenot v. Cormier

Fontenot v. Cormier’s Empirical Analysis

56 F.3d 669 · 1995

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
3
states following
August 2023
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently August 2023 · most notably United States v. Ramirez-Chilel (2002), Goodson v. City of Corpus Christi (2000)

14 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

2001995200020102020decided

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))

Relies on Graham v. Connor · Payton v. New York · California v. Hodari D. · Siegert v. Gilley · Hudson v. McMillian

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

  1. “plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established right.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “If the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made under Rule 50(a), the court is considered to have submitted the action to the jury subject to the court’s later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion. No later than 10 days after the entry of judgment ... the movant may file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and may include an alternative or joint request for a new trial under Rule 59.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “First, a court must determine whether plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established right. Second, the court must determine whether the offic[ial]’s conduct was objectively reasonable in light of the legal rules applicable at the time of the alleged violation.”
    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.