Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 560 F.3d 316 - Sossamon v. Lone Star

Sossamon v. Lone Star’s Empirical Analysis

560 F.3d 316 · 2009

Citation profile

265
cited by 265 later decisions
4
cited 4 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
June 2026
most recently cited

39 federal appellate · 11 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 265 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably Sossamon v. Texas (2011), Sossamon v. Texas (2011)

39 federal appellate · 11 district · 4 state decisions

2170200920102020decided

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.

Appellate journey

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000C

Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Farmer v. Brennan · Monroe v. Pape · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Will v. Michigan Department of State Police

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

  1. “The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “A fact is 'material' if its resolution in favor of one party might affect the outcome of the lawsuit under governing law.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[G]overnment actors in their sovereign capacity and in the exercise of their official duties are accorded a presumption of good faith because they are public servants, not self-interested private parties. Without evidence to the contrary, we assume that formally announced changes to official governmental policy are not mere litigation posturing.”
    4 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.