Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 58 F.3d 865 - Colon v. Coughlin

Colon v. Coughlin’s Empirical Analysis

58 F.3d 865 · 1995

Citation profile

726
cited by 726 later decisions
4
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

81 federal appellate · 91 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 726 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Patterson v. County of Oneida (2004), Iqbal v. Hasty (2007)

81 federal appellate · 91 district · 5 state decisions

33601995200020102020decided

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. § 1738 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Heck v. Humphrey · Kremer v. Chemical Construction Corp. · Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla. · Ratchford v. Gay Lib

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 726 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “(1) the defendant participated directly in the alleged constitutional violation, (2) the defendant, after being informed of the violation through a report or appeal, failed to remedy the wrong, (3) the defendant created a policy or custom under which unconstitutional practices occurred, or allowed the continuance of such a policy or custom, (4) the defendant was grossly negligent in supervising subordinates who committed the wrongful acts, or (5) the defendant exhibited deliberate indifference to the rights of inmates by failing to act on information indicating that unconstitutional acts were occurring.”
    105 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Under New York law, the doctrine of issue preclusion only applies if (1) the issue in question was actually and necessarily decided in a prior proceeding, and (2) the party against whom the doctrine is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first proceeding.”
    13 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “It is well settled in this Circuit that personal involvement of defendants in alleged constitutional deprivations is a prerequisite to an award of damages under § 1983.”
    10 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.