Laughlin v. Rosenman’s Empirical Analysis
163 F.2d 838 · 1947
Citation profile
55 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 85 later decisions — most recently January 1975 · most notably Hoffman v. Halden (1959), William J. Bauers, Jr. v. Herbert T. Heisel, Jr (1966)
55 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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. § 241 (Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996)
Relies on Bell v. Hood · Screws v. United States · Spalding v. Vilas · Cooper v. O'Connor · Yaselli v. Goff
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 85 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e must assume that to the extent the defendants allegedly acted over-zealously or maliciously, they were nevertheless acting within' the outer perimeter of their line of duty, and the alleged acts had more or less connection with the general matters committed by law to their control and supervision. Moreover, we are of the opinion that the selection of a proper method of enforcing a court’s orders in the face of active opposition and obstruction is a decision which it is necessary that these officers be free to make without fear or threat of vexatious or fictitious suits and alleged personal liability.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Green v. Cauthen“[i]f two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire * * * for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or Territory the equal protection of the laws * * *.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage““The application of the rule of immunity cannot be avoided by the allegation of the plaintiff that the defendants are sued in their personal capacities.””
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.