Parkell v. Danberg’s Empirical Analysis
833 F.3d 313 · 2016
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Delores Henry v. Melody Hulett (2020), Palakovic v. Wetzel (2017)
3 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Delaware District Court)
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1746 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Faretta v. California · Farmer v. Brennan · Bell v. Wolfish · Hudson v. Palmer · Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives' Assn.
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Our conclusion that the State Defendants lacked personal involvement in past constitutional violations does not preclude [plaintiff] from obtaining prospective injunctive relief for ongoing violations.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“the nonmoving party must identify facts in the record that would enable them to make a sufficient showing on essential elements of their case for which they have the burden of proof.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The party seeking summary judgment 'has the burden of demonstrating that the evidentiary record presents no genuine issue of material fact.'”
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.