Anton v. Lehpamer’s Empirical Analysis
787 F.2d 1141 · 1986
Citation profile
55 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 119 later decisions — most recently August 2010 · most notably Usher v. City of Los Angeles (1987), United States v. Simmonds (1997)
55 federal appellate · 2 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))
Relies on Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · Wilson v. Garcia · Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson · Board of Regents of Univ. of State of NY v. Tomanio · Rodrigue v. Aetna Casualty & Surety 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 119 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“in Illinois, a plaintiff whose section 1983 cause of action accrued before the Wilson decision, April 17, 1985, must file suit within the shorter period of either five years from the date his action accrued or two years after Wilson.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“determine whether Wilson effectively overruled clear precedent in this circuit upon which litigants may have relied when they filed a section 1983 action”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“(1) the decision must “establish a new principle of law”, either by “overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied ... or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed;” (2) the court must “weigh the merits and demerits in each case” by looking to the prior history of the rule in question, its purpose and effect, and whether retroactive application will promote or retard its operation; and (3) weighing the inequity imposed by retroactive application of the decision.”
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.