Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 782 F.2d 947 - Cannon v. Taylor

Cannon v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis

782 F.2d 947 · 1986

Citation profile

72
cited by 72 later decisions
3
states following
September 2018
most recently cited

29 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably City of Lancaster v. Chambers (1994), Temkin

29 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

3601986199020002010decided

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 Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Parratt v. Taylor · Paul v. Davis · Screws v. United States · Stafford v. Oklahoma

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

  1. “a person injured in an automobile accident caused by the negligent, or even grossly negligent, operation of a motor vehicle by a policeman acting in the line of duty has no section 1983 cause of action for violation of a federal right.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “a font of tort law to be superimposed upon whatever systems may already be administered by the States.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Presumably, under this rationale any party who is involved in nothing more than an automobile accident with a state official could allege a constitutional violation under § 1983. Such reasoning ‘would make of the Fourteenth Amendment a font of tort law to be superimposed upon whatever systems may already be administered by the States.’ Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 701 [ 96 S.Ct. 1155, 1160 , 47 L.Ed.2d 405 ] (1976). We do not think that the drafters of the Fourteenth Amendment intended the Amendment to play such a role in our society.”
    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.