No. 77-1190’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 29 district · 6 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 109 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Lightning Lube, Inc. v. Witco Corp. (1993), No. 98-5283 (2000)
5 federal appellate · 29 district · 6 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
Relies on United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Estelle v. Gamble · Monroe v. Pape · Bell v. Hood · 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 109 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The question is not whether there is literally no evidence supporting the party against whom the motion is directed but whether there is evidence upon which the jury could properly find a verdict for that party.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“police were processing [suspect], and were administering tests, the results of which might have been exculpatory.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In both Pitrone and Mahone the relief available under state law was coextensive with that sought under the fourteenth amendment. In this case as well the relief is co-extensive — both as to elements of proof and elements of damages — since the plaintiffs alleged a state law false arrest claim as well as a constitutional false arrest claim. (The elements of each are for the most part the same. Both would support punitive damages.) In Mahone we recognized that “a case may arise in which a plaintiff claims the relief available under state law is not co-extensive with the relief available under the fourteenth amendment.” 564 F.2d at 1026. This is not such a case either. Had the plaintiff not asserted the state false arrest claim, however, we would have been faced with a very different case, a case in which the relief sought under state law (negligence) would not have been co-extensive with the relief sought under the fourteenth amendment (unconstitutional arrest), either as to elements of proof or elements of damages. In such a situation we may well be required to reach the fourteenth amendment question. See Mahone v. Waddle, supra, 564 F.2d at 1052-56 (Garth, J., dissenting).”
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.