Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 605 F.2d 586 - Naughton v. Bevilacqua

Naughton v. Bevilacqua’s Empirical Analysis

605 F.2d 586 · 1979

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
4
states following
August 1999
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 23 later decisions — most recently August 1999

3 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 state decisions

160197919801990decided

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 Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Rizzo v. Goode · Bryant Et Al. v. North Carolina; And Horn v. North Carolina · Campbell v. McGruder · Alan S. Kostka v. David W. Hogg

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

  1. “This circuit has permitted equitable suits against agency heads where the alleged violations, if not the product of an af: firmative policy or practice of the particular agency, are so pervasive that the agency head, because of his statutory duties and powers, must be considered a responsible party and is necessary to effective relief. We have distinguished such suits from suits involving allegations of “sporadic incidents, over which the [agency head] might properly claim to have no knowledge or control.” Id. at 589 (citations omitted).”
    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.