Trerice v. Pedersen’s Empirical Analysis
769 F.2d 1398 · 1985
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 90 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Department (1988), McCalden v. California Library Ass'n (1990)
46 federal appellate · 6 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. § 1985 · 42 U.S.C. § 1986
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Butz v. Economou · Griffin v. Breckenridge · Feres v. United States · United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners of America, Local 610 v. Scott
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 90 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws; or if two or more persons conspire to prevent by force, intimidation, or threat, any citizen who is lawfully entitled to vote, from giving his support or advocacy in a legal manner, toward or in favor of the election of any lawfully qualified person as an elector for President or Vice President, or as a Member of Congress of the United States; or to injure any citizen in person or property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“As with Trerice's constitutional claims, the failure to allege exhaustion of intraservice remedies itself provides sufficient ground for the dismissal of the section 1985(3) claim.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Miller v. Newbauer“created an absolute intramilitary tort immunity for injuries sustained in the line of duty.”
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.