Jones v. Cannon’s Empirical Analysis
174 F.3d 1271 · 1999
Citation profile
52 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 190 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Vinyard v. Wilson (2002), Cortez v. McCauley (2007)
52 federal appellate · 8 district · 2 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 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 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 · Franks v. Delaware
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 190 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“the Supreme Court has interpreted § 1983 to give absolute immunity to functions intimately associated with the judicial process.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Hart v. Hodges · Swanson v. Scott“clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]his case vividly illustrates the serious problems with carving out such an exception and imposing civil liability for ... false testimony deceiving the grand jury. To prove or to defend against such a claim would necessitate depositions from the prosecutor, the grand jury witnesses, and the grand jury members ... [which], in effect, would emasculate both the absolute immunity for grand jury testimony and the confidential nature of grand jury proceedings. The remedy for false grand jury testimony is criminal prosecution for perjury and not expanded civil liability and damages.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Rehberg v. Paulk · Rehberg v. Paulk
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.