Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 298 F.3d 271 - Curley v. Klem

Curley v. Klem’s Empirical Analysis

298 F.3d 271 · 2002

Citation profile

244
cited by 244 later decisions
4
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

59 federal appellate · 51 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 244 later decisions — most recently June 2025 · most notably Phillips v. County of Allegheny (2008), En Hui Huang v. Attorney General of the United States (2010)

59 federal appellate · 51 district · 4 state decisions

1440200220102020decided

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. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Graham v. Connor · Mitchell v. Forsyth

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

  1. “`there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the imperative to decide qualified immunity issues early in the litigation is in tension with the reality that factual disputes often need to be resolved before determining whether the defendant's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.”
    2 later decisions 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.