Perrin v. Anderson’s Empirical Analysis
784 F.2d 1040 · 1986
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 14 district · 22 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 91 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2016 · most notably Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey (1988), Berry v. City of Muskogee (1990)
30 federal appellate · 14 district · 22 state decisions — followed in 13 states
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 City of Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc. · Delli Paoli v. United States · Carson v. Polley · Mitchell v. Texas · Nulf v. International Paper Co.
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 91 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[e]vidence of the habit of a person or the routine practice of an organization ... is relevant to prove that the conduct of the person or the practice of the organization on a particular occasion was in conformity with the habit or routine practice”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“`a regular practice of meeting a particular kind of situation with a certain type of conduct, or a reflex behavior in a specific set of circumstances.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(a) Reputation or Opinion. In all cases in which evidence of character or trait of character of a person is admissible, proof may be made by testimony as to reputation or by testimony in the form of an opinion. In all cases where testimony is admitted under this rule, on cross-examination inquiry is allowable into relevant specific instances of conduct. (b) Specific Instances of Conduct. In cases in which character or trait of character of a person is an essential element of a charge, claim, or defense, proof may also be made of specific instances of his conduct.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. State v. Lamure · Carson v. State
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.