Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 60 F.3d 325 - Vasquez v. Hernandez

Vasquez v. Hernandez’s Empirical Analysis

60 F.3d 325 · 1995

Citation profile

52
cited by 52 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
June 2020
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 52 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2020 · most notably Christopher Former Secretary of State et al. v. Harbury (2002), Pearl v. City of Long Beach (2002)

14 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

2601995200020102020decided

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. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Barker v. Wingo · Carey v. Piphus · Bounds v. Smith · Armstrong v. Manzo

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

  1. “[t]he defendants' actions could have prejudiced [their] chances of recovery in state court because the resulting delay would cause stale evidence and the fadingof material facts in the minds of potential witnesses.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “[W]hen police officers conceal or obscure important facts about a crime from its victims rendering hollow the right to seek redress, constitutional rights are undoubtedly abridged.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the conspiracy had prevented a full and open disclosure of facts crucial to the cause of action, rendering hollow the plaintiffs’ right of access.”
    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.