Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 833 F.2d 106 - Murphy v. Lane

Murphy v. Lane’s Empirical Analysis

833 F.2d 106 · 1987

Citation profile

117
cited by 117 later decisions
2
states following
July 2015
most recently cited

62 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 117 later decisions — most recently July 2015 · most notably Dougherty v. Town of North Hempstead Board of Zoning Appeals (2002), Gagliardi v. Village of Pawling (1994)

62 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

7901987199020002010decided

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 Conley v. Gibson · Estelle v. Gamble · Ramos v. Lamm · Transamerican Press, Inc. v. Miller · Gomez v. Illinois State Board of Education

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

  1. “[I]t is well established that an act in retaliation for the exercise of a constitutionally protected right is actionable under Section 1983 even if the act, when taken for different reasons, would have been proper.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “allege a chronology of events from which retaliation may be inferred.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “alleging merely the ultimate fact of retaliation is insufficient”
    3 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.