Robert Cunningham’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
2 federal appellate · 10 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably 795 F. Supp. 2d 7 - Dormu v. District of Columbia (2011), Paine v. City of Lompoc (2001)
2 federal appellate · 10 district ·
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
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Graham v. Connor · Mitchell v. Forsyth
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“a public entity is authorized to pay that part of a judgment [against a public employee] that is for punitive or exemplary damages if the governing body of that public entity, acting in its sole discretion except in cases involving an entity of the state government, finds all of the following: (1) The judgment is based on an act or omission of an employee or former employee acting within the course and scope of his or her employment as an employee of the public entity. (2) At the time of the act giving rise to the liability, the employee or former employee acted, or failed to act, in good faith, without actual malice and in the apparent best interests of the public entity. (3) Payment of the claim or judgment would be in the best interests of the public entity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Figueroa v. Gates“n order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid, a § 1983 plaintiff must prove that the conviction or sentence has been reversed on direct appeal, expunged by executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized to make such a determination, or called into question by a federal court’s issuance of a writ of habeas corpus.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Southall v. Frasier“`(a) be so intertwined that we must decide the pendent issue in order to review the claims properly raised on interlocutory appeal. . . or (b) resolution of the issue properly raised on interlocutory appeal necessarily resolves the pendent issue.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. No 04-57037
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.