Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 956 F.2d 696 - James v. Milwaukee County

James v. Milwaukee County’s Empirical Analysis

956 F.2d 696 · 1992

Citation profile

62
cited by 62 later decisions
August 2015
most recently cited

38 federal appellate · 2 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 62 later decisions — most recently August 2015 · most notably Murphy v. Walker (1995), Del Raine v. Williford (1994)

38 federal appellate · 2 district ·

410199220002010decided

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 Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Bell v. Wolfish · Gregg v. Georgia · City of Oklahoma City v. Tuttle · Wilson v. Seiter

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

  1. “deliberate act intended to chastise or deter ... negligence or even gross negligence is not enough; rather, a plaintiff must show actual intent or deliberate indifference on the part of the state actors”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “actual knowledge of impending harm easily preventable, so that a conscious, culpable refusal to prevent the harm can be inferred from the defendant's failure to prevent it.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “the unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain.”
    2 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.