Williams v. Leach’s Empirical Analysis
938 F.2d 769 · 1991
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently December 2011 · most notably Doherty v. City of Chicago (1996), Nagle v. Alspach (1993)
33 federal appellate · 1 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. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866)
Relies on Brendale v. Confederated Tribes & Bands of the Yakima Indian Nation · Volkswagenwerk Aktiengesellschaft v. Schlunk · Belisle v. Anzivino · Mars Steel Corp. v. Continental Bank N.A. · In re Disbarment of McManus
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“25 Thus, the appeal is frivolous. Sanctions are appropriate if”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“result is fore-ordained by the lack of substance to the appellant's arguments.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“which have no foundation in the record at all. Three examples are salient. At page 5 of her brief, Anderson states that two private detectives were hired to serve Sergeant Leach with process relating to the earlier November 25, 1988 complaint. Aside from the fact that matters surrounding the service and dismissal of the first complaint are not on appeal, the record refers to only one investigator having been assigned. Furthermore, Anderson claims to have”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Leach
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.