Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 209 F.3d 944 - Denius v. Dunlap

Denius v. Dunlap’s Empirical Analysis

209 F.3d 944 · 2000

Citation profile

110
cited by 110 later decisions
9
states following
July 2023
most recently cited

28 federal appellate · 7 district · 13 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 110 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably Eng v. Cooley (2009), State v. Russo (2002)

28 federal appellate · 7 district · 13 state decisions

710200020102020decided

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 Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Gideon v. Wainwright · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle

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

  1. “A number of our sister circuits have adopted a variation of the balancing test articulated by the Third Circuit that includes: 1) “the type of record requested”; 2) “the information it does or might contain”; 3) “the potential for harm in any subsequent nonconsensual disclosure”; 4) “the injury from disclosure to the relationship in which the record was generated”; 5) “the adequacy of safeguards to prevent unauthorized disclosure”; 6) “the degree of need for access”; 7) “whether there is an express statutory mandate, articulated public policy, or other recognizable public interest militating toward access.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““[T]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. This is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful, but it is to say that in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “where a plaintiff is seeking relief from judgment that is most appropriately awarded by a trial court on a Rule 60 motion, such as where the plaintiff is claiming oversight, mistake or clerical error, the plaintiff may waive his right to present that type of argument on appeal if he did not make the appropriate Rule 60 motion below.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.