Eaton v. Bibb’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

25 federal appellate · 3 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““In [Case] No. 11233, the defendant King was the state’s attorney at Rock Island, Illinois, where.the trial of plaintiff was held. This Court decided in Cawley v. Warren, [7 Cir.] 216 F.2d 74 , that a state’s attorney was a judicial officer of the State of Illinois and while acting in his official capacity was immune from civil liability under the Federal Civil Rights Act. * * * “Laughlin v. Rosenman, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 164 , 163 F.2d 838 , is a leading case declaring that prosecuting officials are not to be amerced by actions under the Federal Civil Rights Act for their actions in connection with official prosecutions even though it is alleged that such acts were done maliciously. In the Laughlin case it was specifically charged that the prosecuting officials acted without probable cause and for the purpose of prosecuting the defendant whom they knew to be innocent. The court there stated in 82 U.S.App.D.C. 164 , 163 F.2d at page 842 : ‘The contention of the plaintiff that the rule of immunity of public officers from civil liability is inapplicable to the defendants in the instant case because they, as alleged, from ulterior motives, knowingly and wilfully concocted false testimony against him, is resolved against the plaintiff by the settled course of judicial decision.’ ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Kenney v. Killian

2. ““[F]ederal courts do not have the power to control or regulate the ordinary internal management and discipline of prisons operated by the states. We stated [in previous cases] that the disapproval by a prisoner of certain prison rules and regulations was no basis for him to come into Federal Court even though he claims that the restrictions placed upon his activities are in violation of his constitutional rights. Quoting from Stroud v. Swope, 9 Cir., 187 F.2d 850, 851, 852 , we said: ‘We think that it is well settled that it is not the function of the courts to superintend the treatment and discipline of prisoners in penitentiaries, but only to deliver from imprisonment those who are illegally confined.’” 217 F.2d at p. 448.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 202 F. Supp. 624 - Rhodes v. Houston

3. ““As we pointed out in Jennings v. Nester, 217 F.2d 153 , Title 42 U.S.C.A. § 1985 authorizes a cause of action for deprivation of equal protection of the laws, and mentions in that respect action based upon conspiracy. * * * ””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 285 F. Supp. 856 - Dick v. Jeffries