Daniel v. Ferguson’s Empirical Analysis
839 F.2d 1124 · 1988
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 50 later decisions — most recently September 2018 · most notably Priester v. Lowndes County (2004), McCartney III v. First City Bank (1992)
16 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Franks v. Delaware · Bell v. Hood
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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the plaintiff must show: (1) that the deprivation was caused by the exercise of some right or privilege created by the state or by a rule of conduct imposed by the state, or by a person for whom the state is responsible, and (2) that the party charged with the deprivation may fairly be said to be a state actor.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[p]olice reliance in making an arrest on information given by a private party does not make the private party a state actor”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“... District' Courts have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States. A federal court may have subject matter jurisdiction even though the complaint fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted. When a challenge to the.district court’s jurisdiction also contests the existence of a federal cause of action, the proper procedure for the district court is to find that jurisdiction exists and to deal with the objection as a direct attack on the merits of the plaintiffs case. The question is not whether the plaintiff has a cause of action or a remedy, but whether the district court may entertain the suit. The assertion of a claim under a federal statute alone is sufficient to empower the District Court to assume jurisdiction over the case and determine whether, in fact, the Act does provide the claimed rights.”
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.