Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 746 FSUPP2D 973 - Cooney v. Casady

Cooney v. Casady’s Empirical Analysis

2010

Citation profile

1
cited by 1 later decisions
August 2013
most recently cited

1 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · 207 Ill. 2d 263 - Feltmeier v. Feltmeier · Stagman v. Ryan · Fries v. Helsper · Clay v. Holy Cross Hospital

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

  1. “Taking all these discrepancies together (and I have reviewed all of those listed in Exhibit 3 in detail), I cannot conclude that these discrepancies are sufficient to prove a conspiracy, especially given the circumstances under which the Magna-bosco transcripts were created (via mi-crocassette tapes) and, most importantly, when there is no evidence that the three defendants ever met or communicated with each other. Based on this evidence, no reasonable jury could conclude that the defendants conspired together to alter the official transcript.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[Pjlaintiff has put forward no direct or sufficient circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy [among defendants]. Defendants have put forward undisputed evidence that neither Casady nor Sosnow-ski ever met Magnabosco, ever spoke to Magnabosco, or had any kind of communication with her whatsoever. Plaintiffs assertions that Casady and Sosnowski could have known Magnabosco’s identity and contacted her is not supported by any evidence that they did so.”
    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.