Stevens v. Tillman’s Empirical Analysis
855 F.2d 394 · 1988
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Haynes v. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. (1993), Farmer v. Haas (1993)
37 federal appellate · 18 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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. § 1985
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. · Griffin v. Breckenridge · Eastern Railroad Presidents Conference v. Noerr Motor Freight, Inc.
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... addresses private acts — going “in disguise on the highway” is' a reference to the M.O. of the Ku Klux Klan — yet condemns only deeds that “deprive” the victim of “the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws”, something within the domain of government exclusively. The admixture of private and public action has befuddled courts ever since. Id. at 403 (citing Griffin v. Breckenridge, supra; Novotny, supra; and United Brotherhood of Carpenters v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825 , 103 S.Ct. 3352 , 77 L.Ed.2d 1049 (1983).”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“F” attached to the Memorandum of Law in Support of the Motion to Dismiss and in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment of Defendants Public Savings Association, Inc., Apex Financial Corporation of Pa., Inc. and Richard Stern). . Initially, a hearing was scheduled for October 27, 1986, but only plaintiff, who did not appear, received notice. The hearing was then rescheduled for October 30th. Id. at 2 n. 1. . Id. at 4 . . I note that even if I found the existence of state involvement, I would still grant summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The core of plaintiffs 1985(3) claim is that the defendants conspired to deprive him of his interest in his property by obtaining a judgment through mortgage foreclosure proceedings of which he was not given notice. Under section 1985(3), "plaintiff must allege and prove four elements: (1) a conspiracy: (2) for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; and (3) an act in furtherance of the conspiracy; (4) whereby a person is either injured in his person or property or deprived of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“is hurled about so indiscriminately that it is no more than a verbal slap in the face; the target can slap back.... It is not actionable unless it implies the existence of undisclosed, defamatory facts, and Stevens has not relied on any such implication. Under the analysis set forth in these authorities, defendant's verbal abuse of the plaintiffs was not defamatory. Plaintiffs failed to suggest any undisclosed, empirically verifiable facts which the audience at the condominium meeting could have understood to be implied by defendant's characterization of them as”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.