Williams v. Lane’s Empirical Analysis
1982
Citation profile
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1927 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Noonan v. Cunard Steamship Co. · Chandler Supply Co. v. GAF Corp. · Resnick v. American Dental Ass'n · Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, a Connecticut Corporation v. Jeppesen & Company, a Colorado Corporation · 482 F. Supp. 121 - Johnson v. Brelje
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“For example, would Williams seek a Rule 23(b)(3) certification as to past occupants alone (given the availability of Rule 23(b)(2) to present and future occupants)? ... If not, is it appropriate to keep the Rule 23(b)(2) certification at all, or should Rule 23(b)(3) simply extend to everyone (past, present and future)?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Lane“All persons who are now or who are hereafter designated under Administrative Regulation 808 for residence in a Protective Custody Unit at Stateville Correctional Center.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Lane“That plaintiffs also seek some monetary relief does not defeat a Rule 23(b)(2) determination, for the primary relief sought is injunctive.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Williams v. Lane
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.