Dykes v. Aj Hosemann a W’s Empirical Analysis
743 F.2d 1488 · 1984
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 53 later decisions — most recently July 2018 · most notably Scotto v. Almenas (1998), Jurldine A. Donaldson v. Paul v. Clark (1987)
20 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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))
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · International Shoe Co. v. Washington · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Santosky v. Kramer · Gault
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 53 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If there are any cases where conclusory allegations of conspiracy and wrongdoing are likely to be made against a judge and other persons involved in the dispute, they are cases such as this, where the strongest emotions of both parties are unleashed.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Dykes, Jr. began experiencing marital difficulties in 1977. In November of that year, Buzzy took their only child, Aaron, from their home in Pennsylvania to his parents' house in Florida. It is alleged that Buzzy and his father, Roger F. Dykes, a Brevard County, Florida Circuit Court judge, formulated a plan to obtain a colorable court order awarding custody of Aaron to Buzzy. Judge Dykes telephoned Judge Anthony Hosemann, Jr., a member of his court then assigned to the court's juvenile division 2 for advice. Judge Hosemann counseled that Buzzy come before him with a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or any other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress....”
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.