Dellums v. Powell’s Empirical Analysis
566 F.2d 167 · 1977
Citation profile
135 federal appellate · 87 district · 42 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 368 later decisions (11 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2023 · most notably Gomez v. Toledo (1980), Memphis Community School District v. Stachura (1986)
135 federal appellate · 87 district · 42 state decisions
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. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866)
Relies on Scheuer v. Rhodes · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Eisen v. Carlisle & Jacquelin · Pierson v. Ray
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 368 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Justification can be established by showing that there was probable cause for arrest of the plaintiff on the grounds charged. A lesser showing can also be made, namely that the arresting officer had reasonable grounds to believe a crime had been committed and that plaintiff's arrest was made for the purpose of securing the administration of the law (i.e., that the officer acted in good faith).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]n the absence of a showing that [class] certification affected the 'substantial rights of the parties,' Rule 61, Fed.R.Civ.P., it is doubtful that reversal of certification on appeal would ever be appropriate.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Burns v. Long · Sule v. Bh Story“can prohibit any dangerous, disorderly or disruptive conduct. Therefore, Congress can and should prohibit demonstrations within the Capitol Buildings themselves”). . In Nicholson the trial judge construed a similar statute, D.C.Code § 9-124 (1969), as applying only to “any group which is noisy, violent, armed, or disorderly in behavior; any group which has a purpose to interfere with the processes of the Congress, any Member of Congress, congressional employee, visitor, or tourist; any group which has the effect, by its presence, of interfering with the processes of the Congress, any Member of Congress, congressional employee, visitor, or tourist; and any group which damages any part of the buildings, shrubbery, or plant life.” 184 U.S.App.D.C. at 312-13 , 566 F.2d at 204-05 . “In each category, the conduct would have to be more disruptive or more substantial (in degree or number) than that normally engaged in by tourists and others routinely permitted on the Grounds.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.