Crowder v. Lash’s Empirical Analysis
687 F.2d 996 · 1982
Citation profile
96 federal appellate · 5 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 261 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Wright v. Collins (1985), Rakovich v. Wade (1988)
96 federal appellate · 5 district · 8 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
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Wolff v. McDonnell · Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore · Montana v. United States
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 261 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“if the official acts or fails to act with a deliberate or reckless disregard of plaintiff's constitutional rights, or if the conduct causing the constitutional deprivation occurs at her direction or with her knowledge or consent.”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Coleman v. Frantz · Smith v. Rowe“[t]he logical import of this theory ... would be to hold any well informed Commissioner of Corrections personally liable for damages flowing from any constitutional violation occurring at any jail within that Commissioner’s jurisdiction. We believe that such a broad theory of liability is inconsistent with the personal responsibility requirement for assessing damages against public officials in a section 1983 action.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In order to determine when a party may appropriately be precluded from relitigating an issue decided adversely to it in an earlier proceeding, a court must examine whether the issue on which collateral estoppel is asserted is identical to that determined in the prior action; whether the controlling facts or legal principles have changed significantly since the prior judgment; and whether any special circumstances exist which would render preclusion inappropriate or unfair, [citations omitted].”
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.