Walker v. Schaeffer’s Empirical Analysis
854 F.2d 138 · 1988
Citation profile
22 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 71 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Ingram v. City of Columbus (1999), Lester Olsen v. William Correiro Alan Silvia the City of Fall River (1999)
22 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 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. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Allen v. McCurry · Pierson v. Ray · Migra v. Warren City School District Board of Education
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e conclude that the proper accommodation between the individual’s interest in preventing unwarranted intrusions into his liberty and society’s interest in encouraging the apprehension of criminals requires that § 1983 doctrine be deemed, in the absence of any indication that Congress intended otherwise, to incorporate the common-law principle that, where law enforcement officers have made an arrest, the resulting conviction is a defense to a § 1983 action asserting the arrest was made without probable cause.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In order to assert collateral estoppel successfully, a party must plead and prove the following elements: (1) The party against whom estoppel is sought was a party or in privity with a party to the prior action; (2) There was a final judgment on the merits in the previous case after a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue; (3) The issue must have been admitted or actually tried and decided and must be necessary to the final judgment; and (4) The issue must have been identical to the issue involved in the prior suit.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“We hold, therefore, that petitioner's state-court judgment in this [§ 1983] litigation has the same preclusive effect in federal court that the judgment would have in the Ohio state courts.”
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.