Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 102 F.3d 96 - Carver v. Foerster

Carver v. Foerster’s Empirical Analysis

102 F.3d 96 · 1996

Citation profile

75
cited by 75 later decisions
2
states following
March 2021
most recently cited

32 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably Boyle v. County of Allegheny (1998), Azzaro v. County of Allegheny (1997)

32 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions

3801996200020102020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 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 · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Mitchell v. Forsyth

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

  1. “passed by means of established legislative procedures.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “defendants assert that the positions were eliminated as part of a larger attempt to keep down administrative costs. The defendants further contended that at the same two sessions where the plaintiffs lost their positions, the Salary Board took additional actions affecting 19 other county departments, resulting in the elimination of twenty two other positions.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[a]n unconstitutional or illegal course of conduct by county government does not fall within the doctrine of absolute immunity merely because it is connected to or followed by a vote of a county board.”
    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.