Howard v. Drapkin’s Empirical Analysis
1990
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 57 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Collins on Behalf of Collins v. Tabet (1991), 5 Cal. App. 4th 392 - Mattco Forge, Inc. v. Arthur Young & Co. (1992)
5 federal appellate · 57 state decisions — followed in 12 states
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 Mitchell v. Forsyth · Pierson v. Ray · Carnegie v. United States · Stump v. Sparkman · Briscoe v. W
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.
“quasi-judicial immunity is properly extended to these neutral third-parties for their conduct in performing dispute resolution services which are connected to the judicial process and involve either (1) the making of binding decisions, (2) the making of findings or recommendations to the court or (3) the arbitration, mediation, conciliation, evaluation or other similar resolution of pending, disputes.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lythgoe v. Guinn“to people connected with the judicial process ... such as (1) mediators, guardians ad litem, therapists, receivers, bankruptcy trustees and other persons appointed by the courts for their expertise and (2) persons whose work product comes into the judicial process to be used by the court even though they were not court-appointed, such as social workers and probation department employees.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Lythgoe v. Guinn“The requirement that the communication be in furtherance of the objects of the litigation is, in essence, simply part of the requirement that the communication be connected with, or have some logical relation to, the action, i.e. that it not be extraneous to the action____ The “furtherance” requirement was never intended as a test of a participant’s motives, morals, ethics or intent.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.