Francis v. Crafts’s Empirical Analysis
203 F.2d 809 · 1953
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 11 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 84 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently September 2013 · most notably Irvine v. People of State of California (1954), Hoffman v. Halden (1959)
49 federal appellate · 11 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. § 1343
Relies on Tenney v. Brandhove · Bradley v. Fisher · Pargoud v. United States · Picking v. Pennsylvania R. · Cobb v. City of Malden
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 84 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““ * * * With respect to all judicial officers, — justices of the peace, as well as judges of the higher courts, ■ — -the settled law of the supreme court of the United States, * * * is that, where they act within their jurisdiction, they are not amenable to any civil action for damages. No matter what their motives may be, they cannot be inquired into.””
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“This is not the first time that a court has been perplexed by the apparently sweeping and unqualified language of the old Civil Rights Act. 8 U.S.C.A. § 43 seems to say that every person in official position, whether executive, legislative, or judicial, who under color of state law subjects or causes to be subjected any person to the deprivation of any rights secured by the Constitution of the United States, shall be liable in damages to the person injured. * * * Reading the language of the Act in its broadest sweep, it would seem to make no difference that the conduct of the defendants might not have been tortious at common law; for the Act, if read literally, creates a new federal tort, where all that has to be proved is that the defendants as a result of their conduct under color of state law have in fact caused harm to the plaintiff by depriving him of rights, etc., secured by the Constitution of the United States. 56 "Fortunately, Tenney v. Brandhove, * * * has relieved us of the necessity of giving the Civil Rights Act such an awesome and unqualified interpretation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Byrd v. Sexton““Certainly it would be absurd to hold, in the application of the Civil Rights Act, that judicial officers of a state stand in any less favorable position than do state legislators, in respect to immunity from civil liability for acts done in their official capacity.””
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Tate v. Arnold
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.