Martin v. Malhoyt’s Empirical Analysis
830 F.2d 237 · 1987
Citation profile
81 federal appellate · 105 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 230 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably Branch v. Tunnell (1994), Atherton v. District of Columbia Office of the Mayor (2009)
81 federal appellate · 105 district · 8 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 16 U.S.C. § 1A · 18 U.S.C. § 13 (Assimilative Crimes Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2680 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Erie Co v. Tompkins · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Scheuer v. Rhodes
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 230 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'to put defendants on notice of the nature of the claim and enable them to prepare a response and, where appropriate, a summary judgment motion on qualified immunity grounds.'”
8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(1) a conspiracy; (2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, ... and (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; (4) whereby a person is either injured in her person or property or deprived of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[unsupported factual allegations which fail to specify in detail the factual basis necessary to enable [defendants] to intelligently prepare their defense, will not suffice to sustain a claim of governmental conspiracy to deprive [plaintiffs] of their constitutional rights.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.