Smith v. Parman’s Empirical Analysis
1917
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 24 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 48 later decisions (4 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2019 · most notably Imbler v. Pachtman (1976), Butz v. Economou (1978)
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 24 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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 Griffith v. Slinkard · Michael v. Matson · Neitzel v. City of Concordia
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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The publie prosecutor, in deciding whether a particular prosecution shall be instituted or followed up, performs much the same function as a grand jury. If, while he has a question of that kind under advisement, he is charged with notice that he may have to defend an action for malicious prosecution in case of a failure to convict, his course may be influenced by that consideration, to the disadvantage of the public. Communications made to a publie prosecutor relating to offenses against the law are treated as privileged, because 'persons having knowledge regarding the commission of a crime ought to be encouraged to reveal to the prosecuting attorney fully, freely, and unreservedly the source and extent of their inf ormation.’ Michael v. Matson, 81 Kan. 360 , 366, 105 P. 537 , 540, L. R. A. 1915D, 1. We think the reason for granting immunity to judges and grand jurors applies with practically equal force to a public prosecutor in his relations to actions to punish infractions of the law. There is no great danger that abuse of power will be fostered by this exemption from civil liability, for the prosecutor is at all times under the wholesome restraint imposed by the risk of being called to account criminally for official misconduct (Gen. Stat. 1915, § 3588), or of being ousted from office on that account (Gen. Stat. 1915, § 7603).””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage
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.