Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 186 F.2d 257 - Papagianakis v. Samos

Papagianakis v. Samos’s Empirical Analysis

186 F.2d 257 · 1950

Citation profile

45
cited by 45 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
6
states following
October 2007
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 45 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently October 2007 · most notably Butz v. Economou (1978), Virgil Norton, Virgil Wesley and James Chapman v. James P. McShane (1964)

17 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions

240195019601970198019902000decided

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)) · 5 U.S.C. § 1001

Relies on Bell v. Hood · Screws v. United States · Bradley v. Fisher · Spalding v. Vilas · Pargoud v. United States

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. ““It does indeed go without saying that an official, who is in fact guilty of using his powers to vent his spleen upon others, or for any other personal motive not connected with the public good, should not escape liability for the injuries he may so cause; and, if it were possible in practice to confine such complaints to the guilty, it would be monstrous to deny recovery.' The justification for doing so is that it is impossible to know whether the claim is well founded 'until the case has been tried, and that to submit all officials, the innocent as well as the guilty, to the burden of a trial and to the inevitable danger of its outcome, would dampen the ardor of all but the most resolute, or the most irresponsible, in tile unflinching discharge of their duties. Again and again the public interest calls for action which may turn out to be founded on a mistake, in the face of which an official may later find himself hard put to it to satisfy a jury of his good faith. .There must indeed be means of punishing public officers who have been truant to their duties; but that is quite another matter from exposing such as have been honestly mistaken to suit by anyone who has suffered from their errors. As is so often the case, the answer must be found in a balance between the evils inevitable in either alternative. In this instance it has been thought in the end better to leave unredressed the wrongs done by dishonest officers than to subject those who try to do their duty to the con”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““The decisions have, indeed, always imposed as a limitation upon the immunity that the officer’s act must have been within the scope of his powers. . . . What is meant by saying that the officer must be acting within his power cannot be more than that the occasion must be such as would have justified the act, if he had been using his power for any of the purposes on whose account it was vested in him.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the circumstances show that he is not disagreeably impressed by the fact that his action injuriously affects the claims of particular individuals.”
    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.