Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 794 F.2d 478 - Sanders v. Kennedy

Sanders v. Kennedy’s Empirical Analysis

794 F.2d 478 · 1986

Citation profile

79
cited by 79 later decisions
July 2019
most recently cited

37 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 79 later decisions — most recently July 2019 · most notably Hyland v. Wonder (1992), Evans v. Safeco Life Insurance (1990)

37 federal appellate ·

2501986199020002010decided

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 · Daniels v. Williams · Hudson v. Palmer · Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati

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

  1. “The availability of a state tort remedy does not bar due process claims brought under section 1983 in cases where a plaintiff is challenging an established state procedure.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'unless it appears to a certainty that the plaintiff would not be entitled to relief under any set of facts that could be proved.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Since Parratt, other circuits have noted the existence of the distinction between a Fourteenth Amendment claim for deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process and a claim based upon a violation of Fourth Amendment rights, and have refused to apply the Parratt analysis to the latter.... Therefore, we conclude that the Parratt analysis is not applicable to a claim, such as the instant excessive use of force claim, brought under the Fourth Amendment.”
    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.