Harper v. Wallingford’s Empirical Analysis
877 F.2d 728 · 1989
Citation profile
58 federal appellate · 35 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 180 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Mai Systems Corporation v. Peak Computer Inc Mai Systems Corporation (1993), Friedman v. Arizona (1990)
58 federal appellate · 35 district ·
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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Haines v. Kerner · Turner v. Safley
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 180 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The moving party has the burden of demonstrating the absence of a genuine issue of fact for trial. If the moving party satisfies this burden, the opponent must set forth specific facts showing that there remains a genuine issue for trial.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Engel v. Borg · Lawson v. Rowland“if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“only where 'the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'”
4 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.