Copeland v. Machulis’s Empirical Analysis
57 F.3d 476 · 1995
Citation profile
42 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 402 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably Gregory v. City of Louisville (2006), Castellano v. Fragozo (2003)
42 federal appellate · 1 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. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Parratt v. Taylor · Daniels v. Williams
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 402 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The moving party bears the initial burden of establishing an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party’s case. Once the moving party has met its burden of production, the nonmoving party cannot rest on its pleadings, but must present significant probative evidence in support of the complaint to defeat the motion for summary judgment. The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence to support plaintiffs position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[M]ere disparate impact is insufficient to demonstrate an equal protection violation.”
2 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.