Ham v. Smith’s Empirical Analysis
653 F.2d 628 · 1981
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently June 2011 · most notably Eldridge v. Block (1987), Rand v. Rowland (1998)
21 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 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. § 292 · 5 U.S.C. § 552 (Freedom of Information Act)
Relies on Mead Data Central, Inc. v. United States Department of Air Force · Wayne Hudson v. Kenneth L. Hardy · Allen v. Central Intelligence Agency · Gardels v. Central Intelligence Agency · Coady v. Aguadilla Terminal Inc.
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Before entering summary judgment against [a pro se litigant] the district court, as a bare minimum, should [provide] him with fair notice of the requirements of the summary judgment rule. We stress the need for a form of notice sufficiently understandable to one in [the pro se litigant’s] circumstances fairly to apprise him of what is required. 13”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This court has recognized that district judges should accord special attention to pro se litigants faced with summary judgment motions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“aggravated in this case by the court’s denial of [plaintiff’s] request for an extension of time.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Eldridge v. Block
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.