Briggs v. Marshall’s Empirical Analysis
93 F.3d 355 · 1996
Citation profile
35 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 67 later decisions — most recently June 2016 · most notably United States v. Moore (1997), Slicker v. Jackson (2000)
35 federal appellate · 3 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
Relies on Farrar v. Hobby · Wright v. Wright · Insurance Co. of North America v. United States Department of Labor · McNabola v. Chicago Transit Authority · Gibeau v. Nellis
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 67 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(1) the difference between the judgment recovered and the recovery sought; (2) the significance of the legal issue on which the plaintiff prevailed; and (3) the public purpose of the litigation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, during an altercation between a police officer and an arrestee/detainee, the officer might use both justifiable and excessive force, but any injury might have resulted from the justifiable force, thereby supporting the denial of compensatory damages. Next, nominal damages may be appropriate where a jury reasonably concludes that evidence concerning the plaintiffs’ injuries was not credible_ Finally, nominal damages may be appropriate where the victim’s injuries have no monetary value or are insufficient to justify with reasonable certainty a more substantial measure of damages.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[i]n cases which result in a nominal damage award or a damage award that is minimal in relation to the amount of damages sought, this circuit employs the three-part test from Justice O’Connor’s concurrence in Farrar to determine whether a prevailing party achieved enough success in the underlying suit to be entitled to an award of attorney’s fees.”
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.