Webb v. Ethridge’s Empirical Analysis
849 F.2d 546 · 1988
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 15 later decisions — most recently September 2014
4 federal appellate ·
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. § 1738 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Allen v. McCurry · Haring v. Prosise · Rich v. Dollar · 115 Ga. App. 265 - Smith v. Wood · 135 Ga. App. 739 - Hudson v. State
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 15 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Because the federal full faith and credit statute, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1738, requires federal courts to give preclusive effect to a state-court judgment whenever the courts of the state from which the judgment emerged would do so, we must look to the operation of the state's law of collateral estoppel.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Farred v. Hicks“if the legal norms allegedly violated were as a matter of law clearly established at the appropriate time, a genuine fact issue as to what conduct the defendant engaged in would preclude a grant of summary judgment based upon qualified immunity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Herren v. Bowyer“rules of collateral estoppel apply to actions brought under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 and can give preclusive effect to judgments rendered in state criminal proceedings.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Farred v. Hicks
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.