Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 29 F.3d 1086 - Mackey v. Dyke

Mackey v. Dyke’s Empirical Analysis

29 F.3d 1086 · 1994

Citation profile

44
cited by 44 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
March 2017
most recently cited

23 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 44 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2017 · most notably Sandin v. Conner (1995), Copeland v. Machulis (1995)

23 federal appellate ·

280199420002010decided

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 · Anderson v. Creighton · Parratt v. Taylor · Daniels v. Williams · Hudson v. Palmer

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

  1. “defendants bear the initial burden ... [of] show[ing] they were acting within their discretionary authority at the time in question”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “; (2) predeprivation process was impossible; and (3) the state actor was not authorized to take the action that deprived the plaintiff of property or liberty. 494 U.S. at 136-39.... The controlling inquiry is whether the state was in a position to provide for predeprivation process. Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U.S. 517 , 534 (1984). 20 Mackey, 29 F.3d at 1093 (parallel citations omitted). Therefore, Parratt is”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.