Anderson v. Angelone’s Empirical Analysis
86 F.3d 932 · 1996
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 36 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently May 2022 · most notably Williams v. Paramo (2015), United States v. Seesing (2001)
27 federal appellate · 36 district · 1 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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 2000B
Relies on Turner v. Safley · Warren III v. City of Carlsbad · Klingele v. Eikenberry · North Star International v. Arizona Corp. Commission · McElyea v. Babbitt
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 99 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.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“consider certain materials-documents attached to the complaint, documents incorporated by reference in the complaint, or matters of judicial notice-without converting the motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“This requires the district court to tell the prisoner about his 'right to file counter-affidavits or other responsive materials and [to] alert[ ] [him] to the fact that his failure to so respond might result in the entry of summary judgment against him.'”
3 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.