Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 19 F.3d 573 - Hansen v. Soldenwagner

Hansen v. Soldenwagner’s Empirical Analysis

19 F.3d 573 · 1994

Citation profile

80
cited by 80 later decisions
March 2019
most recently cited

41 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently March 2019 · most notably Lassiter v. Alabama (1994), Kelly v. Curtis (1994)

41 federal appellate ·

440199420002010decided

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))

Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Connick v. Myers

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

  1. ““When considering whether the law applicable to certain facts is clearly established, the facts of cases relied upon as precedent are important. The facts need not be the same as the facts of the immediate case. But they do need to be materially similar. [Citation omitted]. Public officials are not obligated to be creative or imaginative in drawing analogies from previously decided cases.””
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[0]nly in the rarest of cases will reasonable government officials truly know that the termination or discipline of a public employee violated 'clearly established' federal rights.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “Because no bright-line standard puts the reasonable public employer on notice of a constitutional violation, the employer is entitled to immunity except in the extraordinary case where Pickering balancing would lead to the inevitable conclusion that the discharge of the employee was unlawful.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.