842 F. Supp. 803 - Gilbert v. Feld’s Empirical Analysis
1993
Citation profile
How this case has been cited
Cited by 6 later decisions — most recently October 2012
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 Illinois v. Gates · Parratt v. Taylor · Local 408, International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. National Labor Relations Board · Kelly v. United States · Schapansky v. Department of Transportation
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) Plaintiff “filed an amended charge with the EEOC, naming FEB & K and Mr. Braverman individually.” Answer at ¶ 85. (2) Plaintiffs “filing of a baseless amended charge with the EEOC against David Braverman was done as a pretext to leverage certain financial demands upon Mr. Braverman and FEB & K.” Id. at ¶ 86. (3) Plaintiff “has manipulated the legal process in filing and serving baseless charges with the EEOC, for the sole purpose of extortion, a purpose other than that for which it was designed.” Id. at ¶ 87. (4) Plaintiffs “action in filing a baseless EEOC charge and amended charge against FEB & K was taken as a pretext to leverage certain demands upon FEB & K.” Id. at ¶ 94. (5) Plaintiff “has manipulated the legal process in filing and serving baseless charges for the sole purpose of extortion, a purpose other than that for which it was designed.” Id. at ¶ 95.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“It has been immemorially held that the public interest requires that the legally trained mind of the judge and not the more or less emotional minds of jurors, decide whether or not there was probable cause for the initiation of the prosecution. Jurors are likely to confuse the issue of guilt or innocence of the defendant in the criminal case out of which the civil action originated with the basic issue whose determination decides the civil action. That basic issue is the want of probable cause for the criminal prosecution.”
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.