Dean v. Byerley’s Empirical Analysis
354 F.3d 540 · 2004
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably Dunigan v. Noble (2004), Parks v. City of Columbus (2005)
8 federal appellate · 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
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Monroe v. Pape
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 27 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, “for officials whose special functions or constitutional status requires complete protection from suit, we have recognized the defense of ‘absolute immunity.’” For example, the Supreme Court has recognized the defense of absolute immunity for legislators performing legislative functions, judges performing judicial functions, prosecutors performing prosecutorial functions, and the President of the United States in his official capacity---- Second, “government officials who perform discretionary functions are generally entitled to qualified immunity and are protected from civil damages so long as ‘their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.’ ””
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, we determine whether, based upon the applicable law, the facts viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs show that a constitutional violation has occurred. Second, we consider whether the violation involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. Third, we determine whether the plaintiff has offered sufficient evidence to indicate that what the official allegedly did was objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established constitutional rights. Dean v. Byerley, 354 F.3d 540, 557 (6th Cir.2004)(citing Feathers v. Aey, 319 F.3d 843, 848 (6th Cir.2003)). Under either test, Defendant Carter is not entitled to qualified immunity for the reasons stated herein.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the absolute immunity that protects judicial officers engaged in judicial functions also protects other state officials engaged in adjudicative functions.”
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.