Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 131 F.3d 793 - Gabbert v. Conn

Gabbert v. Conn’s Empirical Analysis

131 F.3d 793 · 1997

Citation profile

12
cited by 12 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
November 2018
most recently cited

7 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 12 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2018

7 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

80199720002010decided

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.

Appellate journey

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 Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Anderson v. Creighton · Graham v. Connor · Paul v. Davis

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

  1. “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'common sense,' " id., at 801, the right allegedly violated in this case was clearly established, and as a result, Conn and Najera were not entitled to qualified immunity: "The plain and intended result [of the prosecutors' actions] was to prevent Gabbert from consulting with Baker during her grand jury appearance. These actions were not objectively reasonable, and thus the prosecutors are not protected by qualified immunity from answering Gabbert's Fourteenth Amendment claim.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “as to alert a reasonable officer to its constitutional parameters; and (3) determining whether a reasonable public officer could have believed that the particular conduct at issue was lawful.”
    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.