Davis v. Zirkelbach’s Empirical Analysis
149 F.3d 614 · 1998
Citation profile
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 44 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Palmer v. Marion County (2003), Payne Hicks v. Churchich (1998)
16 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 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 · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Malley v. Briggs
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 44 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[R]eliance on the advice of counsel in certain circumstances rises to the level of extraordinary circumstances.... Relevant factors include how unequivocal, and specifically tailored to the particular facts giving rise to the controversy, the advice was, whether complete information had been provided to the advising attorney(s), the prominence and competence of the attorney(s), and how soon after the advice was received the disputed action was taken.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“when prosecutors are engaged in the sensitive tasks of ... swearing out an information to support a prosecution, the Court has held that they are entitled only to qualified immunity from suit.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“that the City had a policy or practice of unlawfully using intercepted communications in violation of the Federal Wiretap Act . . . or sec.1983,”
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.