Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 923 F.2d 979 - Bryant v. Maffucci

Bryant v. Maffucci’s Empirical Analysis

923 F.2d 979 · 1991

Citation profile

896
cited by 896 later decisions
March 2019
most recently cited

90 federal appellate · 431 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 896 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Weyant v. Okst (1996), Weinstock v. Columbia University (2000)

90 federal appellate · 431 district ·

4040199120002010decided

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 · Estelle v. Gamble

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

  1. “`if evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.'”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “if 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.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Only when reasonable minds could not differ as to the import of the evidence is summary judgment proper.”
    6 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.