Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 36 F.3d 548 - Maltby v. Winston

Maltby v. Winston’s Empirical Analysis

36 F.3d 548 · 1994

Citation profile

109
cited by 109 later decisions
2
states following
September 2016
most recently cited

67 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 109 later decisions — most recently September 2016 · most notably U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. AIC Security Investigations, Ltd. (1995), Hennessy v. Penril Datacomm Networks, Inc. (1995)

67 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions

740199420002010decided

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 · City of Canton v. Harris · Malley v. Briggs · Baker v. McCollan

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

  1. “[G]overnment officials performing discretionary functions generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “summary arguments unsupported by authority are waived”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “even in cases where there was no probable cause for the arrest, by holding that ‘if officers of reasonable competence could disagree’ on whether there was probable cause, the defendant would be immune from damages liability. In other words, only if no reasonable officer could have mistakenly believed that he had probable cause to arrest is the immunity forfeited.”
    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.