Williams v. Bennett’s Empirical Analysis
689 F.2d 1370 · 1982
Citation profile
92 federal appellate · 17 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 220 later decisions — most recently May 2024 · most notably Moore v. Marketplace Restaurant, Inc. (1985), Mary Elizabeth Leary v. Stephen W. Daeschner, Superintendent of the Jefferson County Board of Education (2000)
92 federal appellate · 17 district · 4 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. § 2680 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Scheuer v. Rhodes · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics
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 220 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“it is clear that the inquiry into causation must be a directed one, focusing on the duties and responsibilities of each of the individual defendants whose acts or omissions are alleged to have resulted in a constitutional deprivation.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[W]hen individuals are being sued in individual capacities for damages for personal injuries, the causation inquiry must be more refined and focused than that undertaken ... where only declaratory and injunctive relief [are] sought for constitutional violations pervading an entire prison system.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by citizens of another state, or by citizens or subjects of any foreign state.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. LaMarca v. Turner · Dixon v. Holden
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.