Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 172 F.3d 486 - Markham v. White

Markham v. White’s Empirical Analysis

172 F.3d 486 · 1999

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
1
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Bordelon v. Chicago School Reform Board of Trustees (2000), Hildebrandt v. Illinois Department of Natural Resources (2003)

20 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

3301999200020102020decided

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

Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc. · Buckley v. Valeo · Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc.

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

  1. “entitled to disregard references to depositions and other discovery materials that appeared only in the supporting brief, and to decide the motion based on the factual record outlined in”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[u]nder the doctrine of qualified immunity, liability is not predicated upon the existence of a prior case that is directly on point.” Id. (internal citations omitted). 4 . The Tenth Circuit held that despite the lack of caselaw directly addressing the issue, it was clearly established by 1994 that a public official who used his position to sexually harass a non-employee violated the Constitution. In reaching this conclusion, the Tenth Circuit cautioned that”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “not whether the defendants could have cited the exact article, section, and clause of the Constitution that they were offending. It is instead the more practical question of whether they would have understood that what they were doing violated the plaintiffs' rights.”
    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.