Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 285 FSUPP 498 - MacKay v. Nesbett

MacKay v. Nesbett’s Empirical Analysis

1968

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
1
states following
September 1987
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently September 1987 · most notably Mullis v. United Statescy Court for District of Nevada, Conover v. Montemuro (1972)

10 federal appellate · 9 district · 2 state decisions

220196819701980decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 28 U.S.C. § 2201 · 28 U.S.C. § 2281 · 28 U.S.C. § 2283 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Pierson v. Ray · Sheppard v. Maxwell · Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners of NM · Dent v. State of West Virginia · Stefanelli v. Minard

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

  1. ““The doctrine of judicial immunity applies to a proceeding in which injunctive or other equitable relief is sought, as well as to suits for money damages. Gay v. Heller, 252 F.2d 313 (5th Cir. 1958); Peckham v. Scanlon, 241 F.2d 761 (7th Cir. 1957); Tate v. Arnold, 223 F.2d 782 (8th Cir. 1952); Rhodes v. Houston, 202 F.Supp. 624 (D.Neb.1962); Thompson v. Baker, 133 F.Supp. 247 (W.D.Ark.1955). The reasons for the rule of judicial immunity apply regardless of the nature of the relief sought.” (Emphasis supplied).”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[a] State cannot exclude a person from the practice of law or from any other occupation in a manner or for reasons that contravene the Due Process or Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.”
    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.