56 F. Supp. 3d 308 - Williams v. King’s Empirical Analysis
2014
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1997E
Relies on Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc. · Pearson v. Callahan · City of Cleburne Texas v. Cleburne Living Center
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 2 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“1) Defendants’ summary judgment motion as to Williams’s First Amendment retaliation claims against Katz and Huggler is granted; 2) Williams’s retaliation claim relating to the February 2013 cell search and subsequent disciplinary hearing is dismissed; 3) Williams’s retaliation claims against King and Mead related to the 2010 disciplinary hearing are dismissed.”
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.