Murray v. Wal-Mart, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
874 F.2d 555 · 1989
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently May 2014 · most notably No. 93-4122 (1995), Morris v. Dillard Department Stores, Inc. (2001)
13 federal appellate · 7 district · 4 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 Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Carnegie-Mellon University v. Cohill · Bullock v. United States · Marino v. United States
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[i]n a section 1983 action against a private party, a plaintiff will be entitled to relief if he can show that the private party was “a willful participant in joint activity with the State or its agents” which activity deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional right.... For example, a store and its employees may be considered to be acting jointly with police when the police will detain the accused shoplifters without making an independent investigation ... or pursuant to a customary plan between the store and the police department....”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Murray] alleged that “each and all the acts” which she set forth in her complaint “were done by the Defendants under the color and pretense” of state law. Murray’s claim stated that she sustained numerous injuries and damages “as a direct and proximate result of the joint and several conduet[] of the Defendants, which constitute violation of Plaintiffs Constitutional rights.” Murray’s complaint also specifically invoked jurisdiction pursuant to section 1983.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“state action is present when private security guards and police officers act in concert to deprive a plaintiff of his civil rights”
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.