Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 601 F.2d 261 - Sparkman v. McFarlin

Sparkman v. McFarlin’s Empirical Analysis

601 F.2d 261 · 1979

Citation profile

67
cited by 67 later decisions
1
states following
February 2014
most recently cited

39 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably Moore v. Marketplace Restaurant, Inc. (1985), Norton v. Liddel (1980)

39 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

44019791980199020002010decided

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 Conley v. Gibson · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Haines v. Kerner · Monroe v. Pape

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

  1. “must be allegations that the defendants had directed themselves toward an unconstitutional action by virtue of a mutual understanding,”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “I would build into any principle for the recognition of a § 1983 claim based on a private person’s conspiracy with a state judge, a requirement of pleading and proof not only that the private party used the state court proceedings to produce a constitutional wrong, but that there was agreement between the party and judge beyond ordinary request and persuasion by the prevailing party, and that the state court judge invidiously used his office to deprive the § 1983 plaintiff of a federally protected right.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “(c)onspiracies are by their nature usually clandestine. It is unlikely that a plaintiff in a conspiracy case will be able to provide direct evidence of a conspiratorial agreement. Thus, such evidence is not necessary to prove that a civil conspiracy existed.”
    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.