Richardson v. Chevrefils’s Empirical Analysis
1988
Citation profile
4 district · 18 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2015 · most notably Johnson v. Fankell (1997), Carrillo v. Rostro (1992)
4 district · 18 state decisions
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 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 · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Anderson v. Creighton · Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.
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.
“The doctrine is understood to provide an affirmative defense that may be pleaded in either of the following types of actions brought to redress violations of interests protected under the National Constitution: (1) a constitutional tort action against a defendant alleged to have acted under color of federal law, of a sort recognized in the theory of Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 [ 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 ] (1971); see Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800 [ 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 ] (1982); or (2) a statutory action against a defendant said to have acted under color of State law to violate a plaintiffs right, privilege, or immunity secured by the National Constitution and laws, which may be maintained under § 1983, see Davis v. Scherer, 468 U.S. 183, 190 [ 104 S.Ct. 3012, 3017 , 82 L.Ed.2d 139 ] (1984); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, supra.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“an individual ha[s] a liberty interest cognizable under the fourteenth amendment, and § 1983, in continuing to pursue an occupational calling that he has [heretofore] exercised, which interest the government and its agents might not extinguish by the imposition of a stigma or disqualification in the absence of notice and hearing prior to. the government’s action.”
1 later decision 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.