Brown v. Crawford’s Empirical Analysis
906 F.2d 667 · 1990
Citation profile
38 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 209 later decisions — most recently October 2022 · most notably Maldonado-Denis v. Castillo-Rodriguez (1994), Holifield v. Reno (1997)
38 federal appellate · 1 district · 9 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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Haines v. Kerner
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 209 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“must be based on something more than a theory of respondeat superior. Supervisory liability occurs either when the supervisor personally participates in the alleged constitutional violation or when there is a causal connection between actions of the supervising official and the alleged constitutional deprivation. The causal connection can be established when a history of widespread abuse puts the responsible supervisor on notice of the need to correct the alleged deprivation, and he fails to do so.”
30 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““[WJhere the nonmoving party will bear the burden of proof at trial on a dispositive issue ... Rule 56(e) ... requires the non-moving party to go beyond the pleadings and by ... affidavits,” or by the “depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file,” designate "specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial .. . We do not mean that the nonmov-ing party must produce evidence in a form that would be admissible at trial in order to avoid summary judgment ... Rule 56(e) permits a proper summary judgment motion to be opposed by any of the kinds of evidentiary materials listed in Rule 56(c) except the mere pleadings themselves ...””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although we must view factual inferences favorably toward the nonmoving party and pro se complaints are entitled to a liberal interpretation by the courts, we hold that a pro se litigant does not escape the essential burden under summary judgment standards of establishing that there is a genuine issue as to a fact material to his case in order to avert summary judgment.”
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.