Klingele v. Eikenberry’s Empirical Analysis
849 F.2d 409 · 1988
Citation profile
153 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 256 later decisions — most recently October 2017 · most notably Wyatt v. Terhune (2003), Jones v. Blanas (2004)
153 federal appellate · 9 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.
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Estelle v. Gamble · Daniels v. Williams · Griffin v. Breckenridge · Whitley v. Albers
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 256 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[d]istrict courts are obligated to advise prisoner pro se litigants of [Fed.R.Civ.P.] 56 requirements.”
27 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'as a bare minimum, [to provide a pro se prisoner] with fair notice of the requirements of the summary judgment rule.’” Klingele, 849 F.2d at 411 (quoting Hudson v. Hardy, 412 F.2d 1091, 1094 (D.C.Cir.1968)).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the particular facts that he expected to uncover through discovery and identified specific facts tending to show that the evidence sought actually exists.”
2 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.