Sharp v. State’s Empirical Analysis
1989
Citation profile
4 district · 23 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently April 2018 · most notably Lindenman v. Umscheid (1994), Jarboe v. Board of Sedgwick County Comm'rs (1997)
4 district · 23 state decisions
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)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 42 U.S.C. § 1994
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Will v. Michigan Department of State Police · Powell v. State of Alabama Patterson · Bush v. Lucas · Chappell v. Wallace
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““The sixth and final issue is whether plaintiffs have stated a claim under the theory of Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 . Bivens is an unusual action in which the United States Supreme Court held that the plaintiff had stated a federal damage claim directly under the Fourth Amendment, although no federal statute authorized his action. Federal courts have not allowed Bivens actions against the states. See Vakas v. Rodriquez, 728 F.2d 1293 (10th Cir.), cert, denied 469 U.S. 981 (1984); Colon Berrios v. Hernandez Agosto, 716 F.2d 85 (1st Cir. 1983); and Phelps v. Wichita Eagle-Beacon, 632 F. Supp. 1164 (D. Kan. 1986). The United States Supreme Court has limited nonstatutory damage actions brought under the Bivens theory and cautions against judicial action in expanding available remedies absent statutory mandate. See Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367 , 76 L. Ed. 2d 648 , 103 S. Ct. 2404 (1983); Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296 , 76 L. Ed. 2d 586 , 103 S. Ct. 2362 (1983); Vakas, 728 F.2d at 1296. Plaintiffs seek to distinguish these cases on various grounds, but the arguments are not persuasive. We see no reason to recognize such an action against the State in this case.” 245 Kan. at 754 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““We have held that the State of Kansas has not waived its sovereign immunity in suits seeking monetary damages under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 . See Beck v. Kansas Adult Authority, 241 Kan. 13, 21 , 735 P.2d 222 (1987). More importantly, however, the United States Supreme Court has recently decided, subsequent to the filing of this case, that a State is not a ‘person’ within the meaning of § 1983, and thus not subject to suit under the statute. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58 , 105 L. Ed. 2d 45 , 109 S. Ct. 2304 (1989). Under Will , no relief is available to the plaintiffs under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 .” 245 Kan. at 751 .”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority““Every person who, under color of any statute ... of any State . . . , subjects . . . any citizen of the United States ... to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress.””
1 later decision 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.