Painter v. Harvey’s Empirical Analysis
1987
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Moore v. New York Cotton Exchange · Capron v. Van Noorden · Harris v. Steinem · Sue & Sam Manufacturing Company v. B-L-S Construction Company v. Robert O. Lee, Trading as St. Stephen's Knitwear, Sue & Sam Manufacturing Company v. B-L-S Construction Company v. Robert O. Lee, Trading as St. Stephen's Knitwear · 555 F. Supp. 224 - Appletree v. City of Hartford
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 3 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““transaction” is a word of flexible meaning. It may comprehend a series of many occurrences, depending not so much upon the immediateness of their connection as upon their logical relationship. Accordingly, all logically related events entitling a person to institute a legal action against another generally are regarded as comprising a transaction or occurrence. Several courts have concluded that allegations of a Apattem or practices of discrimination may describe such logically related events and satisfy the same transaction requirement.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“All of the witnesses, except the newspaper editor and witnesses testifying to damages, limited their testimony to a single factual issue--what transpired during Mrs. Painter's arrest on November 9, 1984? It is hard to imagine a case in which the evidence bearing on the two claims is so closely identical.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Painter v. Harvey“The central issue in both the claim and counterclaim is identical: What transpired during Mrs. Painter's arrest on November 9, 1984? The jury, in essence, was faced with irreconcilably conflicting evidence and was required to choose which version to accept or reject.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Painter v. Harvey
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.