Glaros v. Perse’s Empirical Analysis
628 F.2d 679 · 1980
Citation profile
32 federal appellate · 54 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 116 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Watterson v. Page (1993), Emmons v. McLaughlin (1989)
32 federal appellate · 54 district · 5 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.
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Foman v. Davis · Haines v. Kerner · Griffin v. Breckenridge
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 116 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“"some courts have recognized a 'conspiracy theory of personal jurisdiction, whereby jurisdiction can be obtained over out-of-state defendants who have conspired with in-state defendants.... But, to sustain jurisdiction over an out-of-state co-conspirator these courts required something more than the presence of a co-conspirator within the forum state, such as substantial acts performed there in furtherance of the con spiracy and of which the out-of-state co-conspirator was or should have been aware."”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Especially because the circumstances under which cooperation by a private party with law enforcement personnel will convert private action to state action are unclear, ... it is appropriate to require that the relationship or nature of cooperation between the state and a private individual be pled in some detail. This is in line with our requirement that some factual basis supporting the existence of a conspiracy must be pled when a conspiracy is alleged in a civil rights case. Francis-Sobel v. University of Maine, [ 597 F.2d 15 , 17 (1st Cir.1979) ]; Slotnick v. Staviskey, [ 560 F.2d 31 , 33 (1st Cir.1977) ]. See also Sparkman v. McFarlin, 601 F.2d 261, 266-67 (7th Cir.1979) (Sprecher, J., concurring).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In a case allegedly involving surveillance, we do not think it is unrealistic or unfair to expect a plaintiff to describe briefly in his complaint the activities of each defendant said to have surveilled him and how his constitutional rights were impinged upon. Indeed, this is necessary to stating a claim because all surveillance is not per se violative of constitutional rights.”
2 later decisions 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.