Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 108 F.3d 889 - Waddell v. Forney

Waddell v. Forney’s Empirical Analysis

108 F.3d 889 · 1997

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
1
states following
August 2017
most recently cited

16 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently August 2017 · most notably Kuehl v. Burtis (1999), Ronald M. Murphy v. State of Arkansas (1997)

16 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

180199720002010decided

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 12 U.S.C. § 1751 (Credit Union Amendments of 1987) · 12 U.S.C. § 1786

Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Siegert v. Gilley · Johnson v. Jones

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

  1. “whether, in view of the facts that the district court deemed sufficiently supported for summary judgment purposes, the individual defendants' conduct was objectively reasonable given their knowledge and the clearly established law.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “we must consider what specific constitutional rights the defendants allegedly violated, whether the rights were clearly established in law at the time of the alleged violation, and whether a reasonable person in the official’s position would have known that his conduct would violate such rights.” Waddell v. Forney, 108 F.3d 889 , 891 (8th Cir.1997). 9 . The two studenl/plaintiffs would clearly not be covered by this argument. 10 . Pickering v. Board of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 , 88 S.Ct. 1731 , 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968). 11 . We recognize that both the terms”
    1 later decision 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.