678 F. Supp. 2d 35 - Dallio v. Hebert’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 15 U.S.C. § 1 (§ 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 28 U.S.C. § 1915A · 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Conley v. Gibson · Harlow v. Fitzgerald
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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Crediting [the p]laintiff's version of his injuries, the evidence shows that he suffered two black eyes, bruising in his kidney area on his left side, kick marks and open lacerations on his knees, bruising and red spots on his thigh, lacerations on his arms and wrists, a headache, and numbness in his hands and fingers. None of these are conditions of urgency that may produce death. degeneration, or extreme pain.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Grays v. McGrain
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.