Donahue v. Gavin’s Empirical Analysis
280 F.3d 371 · 2002
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 11 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 63 later decisions — most recently September 2020 · most notably Estate of Smith v. Marasco (2003), Pierce v. Gilchrist (2004)
17 federal appellate · 11 district · 1 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))
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Heck v. Humphrey · Imbler v. Pachtman · County of Sacramento v. Lewis · Albright v. Oliver
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 63 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(a) a discharge by a magistrate at a preliminary hearing, or (b) the refusal of a grand jury to indict, or (c) the formal abandonment of the proceedings by the public prosecutor, or (d) the quashing of an indictment or information, or (e) an acquittal, or (f) a final order in favor of the accused by a trial or appellate court.’ ” Donahue v. Gavin, 280 F.3d 371, 383 (3d Cir.2002). The Pennsylvania Supreme Court adopted § 659 in Ha efner v. Burkey, 534 Pa. 62 , 626 A.2d 519, 521 (1993).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“the district court did not rule on whether [the plaintiff] had satisfied the common law elements of a malicious prosecution claim”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(1) the defendants initiated a criminal proceeding; (2) the criminal proceeding ended in plaintiffs favor; (3) the proceeding was initiated without probable cause; (4) the defendants acted maliciously or for a purpose other that bringing the plaintiff to justice; and (5) the plaintiff suffered a deprivation of liberty consistent with the concept of seizure as a consequence of a legal proceeding.”
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.