Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 605 F.3d 282 - Colvin v. Caruso

Colvin v. Caruso’s Empirical Analysis

605 F.3d 282 · 2010

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
March 2025
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 1 district ·

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000C · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 701 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Turner v. Safley · Thomas v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division · Cutter et al. v. Wilkinson Director Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

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

  1. “a two-part test [that] determines whether qualified immunity applies: '(1) whether, considering the allegations in a light most favorable to the party injured, a constitutional right has been violated, and (2) whether that right was clearly established.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution ... even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person [1] is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Allegations of respondeat superior do not sustain a § 1983 claim against state employees in their individual capacities, meaning that officials are personally liable for damages under that statute 'only for their own unconstitutional behavior.'”
    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.