Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 334 F.3d 980 - Cagle v. Sutherland

Cagle v. Sutherland’s Empirical Analysis

334 F.3d 980 · 2003

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
February 2024
most recently cited

10 federal appellate · 3 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently February 2024 · most notably Cook Estate of Tessier v. Sheriff of Monroe County Florida (2005), Estate of Rice ex rel. Rice v. Correctional Medical Services (2012)

10 federal appellate · 3 district ·

190200320102020decided

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

Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Hope v. Pelzer · Board of the County Commissioners of Bryan County v. Brown · Owen v. City of Independence

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

  1. “[q]ualified immunity offers complete protection for government officials sued in their individual capacities as long as their conduct violates no clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “To establish a defendant's deliberate indifference, the plaintiff has to show that the defendant had '(1) subjective knowledge of a risk of serious harm; [and] (2) disregard[ed]... that risk; (3) by conduct that is more than mere negligence.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof 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.