Davis v. Passman’s Empirical Analysis
571 F.2d 793 · 1978
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2002 · most notably Davis v. Passman (1979), Rogin v. Bensalem Township (1980)
34 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Mapp v. Ohio · Ex Parte: Edward T Young
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“no right of action may be implied from the Due Process Clause of the fifth amendment.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Any person whose exercise or enjoyment of rights secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or of rights secured by the constitution or laws of the commonwealth, has been interfered with, as described in section 11H, may institute and prosecute in his own name and on his own behalf a civil action for injunctive and other appropriate equitable relief as provided for in said section, including the award of compensatoiy money damages. Any aggrieved person or persons who prevail in an action authorized by this section shall be entitled to an award of the costs of the litigation and reasonable attorneys’ fees in an amount to be fixed by the court.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“If, on a motion asserting the defense numbered (6) to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, matters outside the pleading are presented to and not excluded by the court, the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56, and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.