Triplett v. Azordegan’s Empirical Analysis
570 F.2d 819 · 1978
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently July 2003 · most notably Cooper v. Dupnik (1991), Pinto v. Nettleship (1984)
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Monroe v. Pape · Jackson v. Denno · Imbler v. Pachtman · United States v. Ash · Leyvas v. United States
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A defendant will not be held liable under ... § 1983 unless he was personally involved ... or he either has or is charged with having actual knowledge that his subordinates are causing deprivations of constitutional rights”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is the nature of the act performed by a state official, not the status of a state official as such, that is determinative of the applicability of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . [citations omitted.] To establish that an act was performed under color of state law, there must exist some authority vested by the state in the .official to act in regard to the constitutional right of which appellant contends he has been denied, [citation omitted]”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It would be incongruous for this court to hold that O’Brien’s failure to come forward with evidence constituted an act under color of state law when clearly, under Edwards [v. Vasel, 349 F.Supp. 164 ], even if O’Brien had been called as a witness and perjured himself concerning his knowledge of appellant’s confession, his act of perjury would not have been performed under color of state law.”
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.