Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 860 F.3d 881 - Fears v. Morgan

Fears v. Morgan’s Empirical Analysis

860 F.3d 881 · 2017

Citation profile

23
cited by 23 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
October 2022
most recently cited

6 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Hernandez v. New York · State of New Hampshire v. State of Maine · Sampson v. Murray

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 23 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “establish that the method presents a risk that is sure or very likely to cause”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “First, a party's later position must be clearly inconsistent with its earlier position. Second, courts regularly inquire whether the party has succeeded in persuading a court to accept that party's earlier position, so that judicial acceptance of an inconsistent position in a later proceeding would create the perception that either the first or the second court was misled. Absent success in a prior proceeding, a party's later inconsistent position introduces no risk of inconsistent court determinations and thus poses little threat to judicial integrity. A third consideration is whether the party seeking to assert an inconsistent position would derive an unfair advantage or impose an unfair detriment on the opposing party if not estopped.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “Ohio itself contacted the departments of correction in Texas, Missouri, Georgia, Virginia, Alabama, Arizona, and Florida to ask whether they would be willing to share their supplies of pentobarbital. All refused. Granted, for the one-drug protocol to be "available" and "readily implemented," Ohio need not already have the drugs on hand. But for [the Glossip ] standard to have practical meaning, the State should be able to obtain the drugs with ordinary transactional effort. Plainly it cannot.”
    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.