Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 728 F.2d 1020 - Miller v. Solem

Miller v. Solem’s Empirical Analysis

728 F.2d 1020 · 1984

Citation profile

100
cited by 100 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
June 2022
most recently cited

48 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 100 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2022 · most notably Davidson v. Cannon (1986), Conner v. Reinhard (1988)

48 federal appellate · 10 district · 1 state decisions

50019841990200020102020decided

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

Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Estelle v. Gamble · United States v. Diebold, Inc. · Butz v. Economou · Wood v. Strickland

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

  1. “[Ojpposing affidavits shall be made on personal knowledge, shall set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence, and shall show affirmatively that the affiant is competent to testify to the matters stated therein.The court may permit affidavits to be supplemented or opposed by depositions, answers to interrogatories, or further affidavits. When a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials of the adverse party’s pleading, but the adverse party’s response, by affidavits or as otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “a party opposing a motion for summary judgment is not without obligations. Rule 56(e) states that "when a motion for summary judgment is made and supported as provided in this rule, an adverse party may not rest on mere allegations or denial of his pleadings, but his response, by affidavit or otherwise provided in this rule, must set forth specific facts that there is a genuine issue for trial."”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[C]onclusive assertions of ultimate fact are entitled to little weight when determining whether a nonmovant has shown a genuine issue of fact sufficient to overcome a summary judgment motion supported by complying affidavits”
    3 later decisions 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.