Kimberlin v. Quinlan’s Empirical Analysis
6 F.3d 789 · 1993
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 13 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2017 · most notably Branch v. Tunnell (1994), Schultea v. Wood (1995)
20 federal appellate · 13 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
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Conley v. Gibson · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · St. Mary's Honor Center v. Hicks
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“address heightened pleading in individual capacity suits, our precedent requiring that standard in such suits remains the governing law of this circuit.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“a plaintiff who charges a government official with a constitutional deprivation where the outcome depends on the official’s state of mind ... is subject to this circuit’s so-called ‘heightened pleading 1 standard, requiring pleading of specific direct evidence of intent to defeat a motion to dismiss____ Thus, [plaintiff] Kimberlin was required to proffer direct evidence of unconstitutional motive on the part of the two defendants and was precluded from relying on mere circumstantial evidence.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of 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.