56 F. Supp. 2d 1195 - Smith v. Plati’s Empirical Analysis
1999
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 district ·
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Anderson v. Creighton · Haines v. Kerner
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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Smith continues to possess the ability to publish anything any citizen could by opening a privately operated website. . . . At all times, Smith retained, and still retains, the ability to speak freely about any political, social or other concern related to the University of Colorado athletic programs.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Smith does not specify the subsection [of Rule 106] under which he seeks relief, but the only one having a conceivable relevance is Rule 106(a)(2).”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[t]he First Amendment does not guarantee the press a constitutional right of special access to information not available to the public generally.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. The Putnam Pit, Inc.
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.