Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 699 F.2d 434 - Smith v. Bacon

Smith v. Bacon’s Empirical Analysis

699 F.2d 434 · 1983

Citation profile

71
cited by 71 later decisions
December 2018
most recently cited

36 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently December 2018 · most notably Rogers v. Bruntrager (1988), Dykes v. Aj Hosemann a W (1985)

36 federal appellate · 3 district ·

4301983199020002010decided

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. § 1915 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Younger v. Harris · Stump v. Sparkman · Polk County v. Dodson · Dennis v. Sparks

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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “'defendants had directed themselves toward an unconstitutional action by virtue of a mutual understanding'”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “beyond a doubt that petitioner can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “must be sufficiently specific, that standard was not intended to be an insurmountable barrier____ We are mindful that “conspiracies are by their nature usually clandestine. It is unlikely that a plaintiff in a conspiracy case will be able to provide direct evidence of a conspiratorial agreement. Thus, such evidence is not necessary to prove that a civil conspiracy existed.” Accordingly, depend ing upon the conspiracy alleged in any particular case, the complainant may or may not be in a position to allege with precision the specific facts giving rise to the claim.”
    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.