Polchowski v. Gorris’s Empirical Analysis
714 F.2d 749 · 1983
Citation profile
14 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently September 2017 · most notably Roy Richard Dittman v. State of California (1999), Unt v. Aerospace Corp. (1985)
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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 3735 · 42 U.S.C. § 3789G · 42 U.S.C. § 3791 · 5 U.S.C. § 552A (§ 3 of the Privacy Act of 1974)
Relies on Cort v. Ash · Maine v. Thiboutot · Middlesex County Sewerage Authority v. National Sea Clammers Assn. · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman · Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran
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 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, is the plaintiff “one of the class for whose especial benefit the statute was enacted,” ... that is, does the statute create a federal right in favor of the plaintiff? Second, is there any indication of legislative intent, explicit or implicit, either to create such a remedy or to deny one? ... Third, is it consistent with the underlying purposes of the legislative scheme to imply such a remedy for the plaintiff? ... And finally, is the cause of action one traditionally relegated to state law, in an area basically the concern of the States, so that it would be inappropriate to infer a cause of action based solely on federal law?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“of Sec. 3789g(a) against state or local officials who make unwarranted disclosures of statistical information. 33 Id. at 752 (citations and footnote omitted). 34 The Seventh Circuit's reasoning applies squarely to the present case, and we are persuaded by it. Although the prohibitions of S 7(a)(1) apply to all governmental entities, including state and local governments, by limiting the scope of the Privacy Act's civil remedy provision, 5 U.S.C. S 552a(g), Congress clearly intended to”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“the bill, as originally introduced, contained a remedy for improper disclosures by state authorities; these provisions were deleted, however, because of the uncertain effect of such a provision and because Congress felt that it lacked the necessary information for devising a remedial scheme in this context”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.