Wright v. No Skiter Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
774 F.2d 422 · 1985
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 25 later decisions — most recently August 2008 · most notably Portman v. County of Santa Clara (1993), Abercrombie v. City of Catoosa (1990)
12 federal appellate · 7 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. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1986
Relies on Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Maughan v. SW Servicing, Inc. · Brown v. Chaffee · Thomas v. United States Department of Energy · Kimble v. D. J. McDuffy, Inc.
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 25 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A. If two or more persons conspire to deter, by force, intimidation, or threat, any party or witness in any court of the United States from attending such court, or from testifying to any matter pending therein, ... or B. to injure such party or witness in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified, or C. if two or more persons conspire for the purpose of impeding, hindering, obstructing, or defeating, in any manner, the due course of justice in any State or Territory, with intent to deny to any citizen the equal protection of the laws, or D.to injure him or his property for lawfully enforcing ... the right of any person, or class of persons, to the equal protection of the laws.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“to injure such party or witness [who has testified in any court of the United States] in his person or property on account of his having so attended or testified.”
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.