Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 848 F.2d 342 - Graham v. Lewinski

Graham v. Lewinski’s Empirical Analysis

848 F.2d 342 · 1988

Citation profile

96
cited by 96 later decisions
November 2023
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 6 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 96 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably Rand v. Rowland (1998), Vital v. Interfaith Medical Center (1999)

26 federal appellate · 6 district ·

36019881990200020102020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1746 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Cargill, Inc. v. Monfort of Colorado, Inc. · Roseboro v. Garrison · Lewis v. Faulkner · Sellers v. Mc Floor Crafters Inc · Beacon Enterprises, Inc. v. Menzies

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

  1. “[L]itigants should be on notice from the very publication of Rule 56(e) that a party faced with a summary judgment motion 'may not rest upon the mere allegations or denials' of the party's pleading and that if the party does not respond properly, 'summary judgment, if appropriate, shall be entered' against him.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “special solicitude should be afforded pro se litigants generally, when confronted with motions for summary judgment”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury. Whenever, under any law of the United States or under any rule, regulations, order, or requirement made pursuant to law, any matter is required or permitted to be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the sworn declaration, verification, certificate, statement, oath, or affidavit, in writing of the person making the same (other than a deposition, or an oath of office, or an oath required to be taken before a specified official other than a notary public), such matter may, with like force and effect, be supported, evidenced, established, or proved by the unsworn declaration, certificate, verification, or statement, in writing of such person which is subscribed by him, as true under penalty of perjury, and dated, in substantially the following form: (1) If executed without the United States: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”. (2) If executed within the United States, its territories, possessions, or commonwealths: “I declare (or certify, verify, or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on (date). (Signature)”.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.