591 F. Supp. 1321 - Beverley v. Douglas’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently July 2001 · most notably Doe ex rel. Doe v. St. Joseph's Hospital of Fort Wayne (1986), Haavistola v. Community Fire Co. of Rising Sun (1993)
13 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 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. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)
Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co. · Delaware State College v. Ricks · Shelley v. Kraemer
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The Supreme Court has identified three situations in which particular conduct by a private entity constitutes “state action.” The first situation is the symbiotic relationship and occurs when there is “a sufficiently close nexus betiveen the state and the challenged action of the regulated entity such that those actions may be fairly treated as those of the state. The inquiry is whether the state is responsible for the specific conduct of which the plaintiff complains.” ... The second situation involves extensive governmental regulation of a private entity: “a state may be held responsible for private conduct only when it has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement that the action must in law be deemed to be that of the state.” ... The final situation occurs when “the private entity exercised powers that are traditionally the exclusive prerogative of the state. ” Relevant to all three situations is the level of governmental funding the private entity receives, although “[rjeceipt of state funds [alone] is ... insufficient to transform ... private actions into state action.” ... The Supreme Court, when addressing the extent to which state regulation will convert private actions into state actions has held on numerous occasions that the regulatory scheme must impact directly the alleged constitutional violation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the kind of occupation, with reference to whether the work usually is done under the direction of a supervisor or is done by a specialist without supervision; (2) the skill required in the particular occupation; (3) whether the “employer” or the individual in question furnishes the equipment used and the place of work; (4) the length of time during which the individual has worked; (5) the method of payment, whether by time or by the job; (6) the manner in which the work relationship is terminated; i.e., by one or both parties, with or without notice and explanation; (7) whether annual leave is afforded; (8) whether the work is an integral part of the business of the “employer”; (9) whether the worker accumulates retirement benefits; (10) whether the “employer” pays social security taxes; and (11) the intention of the parties.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Nor is extensive state regulation sufficient to make an entity's personnel actions state action, as long as the personnel actions were not compelled or influenced by any state or federal regulation.”
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.