Drum v. Nasuti’s Empirical Analysis
1986
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently April 2013
5 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Allen v. McCurry · Imbler v. Pachtman · Wilson v. Garcia
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he requirement of action under color of law is satisfied ... when a private person willfully participates in joint action with a state official____ Thus, [to survive the defendant’s motion for summary judgment,] plaintiff must demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact that there existed between the private defendant and the state official an understanding, agreement, or conspiracy to deprive the plaintiff of a federal right. He must show a genuine factual issue of a combination, agreement, or understanding among the defendants — These [sic] must also be a genuine factual issue that the defendants plotted, planned, or conspired together to carry out the chain of events.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) The issue decided in the prior adjudication is identical with the one presented in the later action; (b) There is a final judgment on the merits; (c) The party against whom the doctrine is asserted was a party or in privity with a party to the other action; (d) The party against whom it is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in question in the prior action; and (e) The issue decided was essential to the judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Agreement to commit an unlawful act lies at the heart of a civil conspiracy. Plaintiff cannot expect to rely upon bare assertions, conclusory allegations, or suspicions, regarding the conspiracy, to resist the defendant’s summary judgment motion____ Broad or conclusory allegations of a conspiracy are insufficient.”
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.