Whittington v. Johnston’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

52 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. ““It is a non sequitur to say that merely by instituting the lunacy proceeding, the defendants ‘caused’ plaintiff to be deprived of her right to due process within the meaning of 8 U.S.C.A. § 43 . If there was any denial of due process, the efficient cause thereof was the omission of the state probate judge to give notice of the proceeding. That failure is not attributable to these defendants. Whether or not notice should be given is committed by the Alabama statute to the discretion of the probate judge. These defendants had no duty in that behalf. They simply instituted the lunacy proceeding as the Alabama statute authorized them to do, and left the conduct thereof wholly to the discretion of the probate judge whose duty and function it was to give any necessary notice.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kenney v. Hatfield · Hoffman v. Halden

2. ““If two or more persons in any State * * * conspire * * * for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person * * * of the equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the laws; * * * [and] if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages, occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Dunn v. Gazzola · Weise v. Reisner

3. ““If plaintiff’s contentions are correct, then one who invokes the jurisdiction of a state court in a lunacy proceeding acts at his peril, and becomes liable under 8 U.S.C.A. § 43 in the event it turns out that the statute under which the court acts, or the procedure followed by the state officers in administering it, do not satisfy the requirements of ’ due process. To hold the defendants li able in such circumstances would impose upon them a vicarious liability not contemplated by 8 U.S.C.A. § 43 . That statute does not require those who regularly institute a lunacy proceeding under a state statute to stand sponsor for the validity of the statute, nor for the acts of the state officers in administering it. “Plaintiff alleges that in instituting the lunacy inquisition, the defendants acted willfully and maliciously. But this adds no strength to the complaint under 8 U.S.C.A. § 43 . Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor the Civil Rights Acts purport to secure a person against unfounded or malicious lunacy proceedings. If the facts here involved make out a case of false arrest or malicious prosecution, the redress of such wrongs is left with the states. Compare Lyons v. Weltmer, 4 Cir., 174 F.2d 473 ; McCartney v. State of West Virginia, 4 Cir., 156 F.2d 739 .””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Kenney v. Killian