Parkinson v. Cozzolino’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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

1. “[i]f a prosecutor had only a qualified immunity, the threat of § 1983 suits would undermine performance of his duties no less than would the threat of common-law suits for malicious prosecution. A prosecutor is duty bound to exercise his best judgment both in deciding which suits to bring and in conducting them in court. The public trust of the prosecutor's office would suffer if he were constrained in making every decision by the consequences in terms of his own potential liability in a suit for damages. Such suits could be expected with some frequency, for a defendant often will transform his resentment at being prosecuted into the ascription of improper and malicious actions to the State's advocate Further, if the prosecutor could be made to answer in court each time such a person charged him with wrongdoing, his energy and attention would be diverted from the pressing duty of enforcing the criminal law.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 506 F. Supp. 2d 903 - Auvaa v. City of Taylorsville · 358 F. Supp. 2d 6 - Mangiafico v. Blumenthal

2. “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process,” Imbler, 424 U.S. at 430 , 96 S.Ct. 984 ; see also Parkinson v. Cozzolino, 238 F.3d 145, 150 (2d Cir.2001), but not for”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 897 F. Supp. 2d 12 - Pooler v. Hempstead Police Department · Blouin v. Spitzer

3. “We now join these courts in holding that absolute immunity covers prosecutors’ actions after the date of conviction while a direct appeal is pending. We express no opinion as to when such immunity ends; the prosecutors’ actions in this case occurred while [the defendant’s] direct appeal was pending, and we have little difficulty extending absolute immunity that far. [FN 5] [FN 5] Specifically, because the facts of this case do not raise the issue, we do not decide whether absolute immunity extends to collateral proceedings, such as habeas petitions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Warney v. Monroe County