Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 774 F.2d 251 - Patterson v. Masem

Patterson v. Masem’s Empirical Analysis

774 F.2d 251 · 1985

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
2
states following
February 2014
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently February 2014 · most notably Cox v. Dardanelle Public School District (1986), O'Connor v. Peru State College (1986)

27 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

1801985199020002010decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 455 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866)

Relies on McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Connick v. Myers · Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.

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

  1. “), and in no category was she rated substantially below the next lowest supervisor. The Assistant Superintendent of Program Implementation, in a cover letter accompanying the evaluation results, called the district's group of supervisors”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Judge Woods' former law firm, during the time he was associated with the firm, represented parties that sought to intervene in and eventually participated as amicus curiae in [related] litigation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[n]o circumstances have been brought to our attention that would cause a reasonable person to question Judge Woods' ability to impartially decide [plaintiff's] case.”
    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.