Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 705 F.2d 676 - Cameron v. Fogarty

Cameron v. Fogarty’s Empirical Analysis

705 F.2d 676 · 1983

Citation profile

39
cited by 39 later decisions
1
states following
September 2011
most recently cited

12 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently September 2011 · most notably Cameron v. Fogarty (1986), Bass v. Jackson (1986)

12 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

3101983199020002010decided

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 Conley v. Gibson · Haines v. Kerner · Allen v. McCurry · Cooper v. Pate · Thomas A. Guerro v. Roger F. Mulhearn, Ralph F. Andrews v. Kathy Decote Young

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

  1. “... New York law would therefore preclude [plaintiff’s] Section 1983 claim for unlawful arrest, and a federal court is bound under normal circumstances to give the prior state-court judgment the same preclusive effect. This result is consistent with an independent line of district court decisions in this circuit, never ruled on by the Court of Appeals, which hold that an allegation of arrest without probable cause under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is in the nature of the common law tort action of false arrest and false imprisonment, and that a valid judgment of conviction, a defense to the tort, requires dismissal of a § 1983 action on motion for summary judgment.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a federal judge should not dismiss a prisoner's pro se, in forma pauperis claim as frivolous unless statute or controlling precedent clearly forecloses the pleading, liberally construed.”
    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.