Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 697 F.2d 366 - McClam v. Barry

McClam v. Barry’s Empirical Analysis

697 F.2d 366 · 1983

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
August 2016
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 14 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently August 2016 · most notably Wilson v. Garcia (1985), Hobson v. Wilson (1984)

21 federal appellate · 14 district · 2 state decisions

3201983199020002010decided

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. § 1331 · 29 U.S.C. § 626 (§ 7 of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967) · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Foman v. Davis · Monroe v. Pape · Allen v. McCurry · Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, 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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “for libel, slander, assault, battery, mayhem, wounding, malicious prosecution, false arrest or false imprisonment,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a ground for rejecting as not closely analogous an otherwise identical common-law cause of action.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. ““in determining what claim (among those for which a state limitations period is specified) is most closely analogous to a given federal claim, a court should select the claim most closely comparable to the federal claim with respect to factfinding accuracy and settled expectations. The comparison of any two claims will generally focus on the facts that must be litigated in trying them.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.