Cain v. Darby Borough’s Empirical Analysis
7 F.3d 377 · 1993
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 30 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2016 · most notably Gilles v. Davis (2005), Smathers v. Multi-Tool, Inc./Multi-Plastics, Inc. Employee Health & Welfare Plan (2002)
14 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Nix v. Williams · Heckler v. Ringer · Pulliam v. Allen · Town of Newton v. Rumery
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 30 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]ny alternative to the “actual reason” requirement creates the real danger that actions taken pursuant to an improper motive, such as to protect public officials from a meritorious civil rights lawsuit, may be legally excused because a court later finds that some “benefit” has been incidentally achieved.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The central tension the Rumery Court harmonized was between the need, on the one hand, to curb the temptation to “trump up charges in reaction to a defendant’s civil rights claim, suppress evi- deuce of police misconduct, and leave unremedied deprivations of constitutional rights,” while on the other hand, to enforce one’s “considered decision that he would benefit personally from the agreement” giving up his individual right to sue.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] prosecutor must conduct an ‘individualized analysis’ of a defendant’s civil rights claims before concluding a release-dismissal agreement ... and that in order for a release-dismissal agreement to be enforceable, ‘there must be a case-specific showing that the released civil rights claims appeared to be marginal or frivolous at the time the agreement was made and that the prosecutor was in fact motivated by this reason.’”
1 later decision 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.