Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 702 F.2d 1263 - Scott v. Rosenberg

Scott v. Rosenberg’s Empirical Analysis

702 F.2d 1263 · 1983

Citation profile

72
cited by 72 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
July 2023
most recently cited

32 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 72 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2023 · most notably Scott v. Rosenberg (1984), Alexandra White Joseph Deringer Richard Graham v. Russell Lee Lynn Tamiyasu-Lee Lavera Gillespie Paul Smith Robert Zurowski John Phillips Elizabeth Julian (2000)

32 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

40019831990200020102020decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 1343 · 18 U.S.C. § 242 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 47 U.S.C. § 303 (Local Community Radio Act of 2010) · 47 U.S.C. § 307

Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Warth v. Seldin · Baker v. Carr

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

  1. “alleged such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “At most, the [federal] employees requested information from, offered to exchange, and did exchange information with the California attorney general's office.... This, without more, is not enough to establish that their conduct was under color of state law.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “conspire with or participate in concert with state officials who, under color of state law, act to deprive a person of protected rights.”
    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.