Love v. King’s Empirical Analysis
784 F.2d 708 · 1986
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently September 2007 · most notably Eason v. Thaler (1996), Fagan v. City of Vineland (1994)
21 federal appellate · 3 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))
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Daniels v. Williams · The Boeing Company v. Daniel C. Shipman · Davidson v. Cannon · Familias Unidas v. Briscoe
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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A mere scintilla of evidence is insufficient to present a question for the jury.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Many courts have simply applied common law tort principles to the concept of abuse of government power holding that, while simple negligence is not actionable under § 1983, gross negligence, recklessness, callous indifference or intentional conduct are_ While terms applicable to common law torts may help to determine what type of conduct constitutes abuse of power, use of such terms can be misleading.... Such terms state only a standard of care. They do not take into account the exact responsibilities of a particular official or his power to take certain actions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]f the facts and inferences point so strongly and overwhelmingly in favor of one party that the Court believes that reasonable men could not arrive at a contrary verdict, granting of the motion[ ] is proper.”
2 later decisions 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.