Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 4 F.3d 2 - Horta v. Sullivan

Horta v. Sullivan’s Empirical Analysis

4 F.3d 2 · 1993

Citation profile

154
cited by 154 later decisions
4
states following
July 2020
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 72 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 154 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably City of Lancaster v. Chambers (1994), Doe v. United States (1995)

18 federal appellate · 72 district · 11 state decisions

8301993200020102020decided

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. § 2680 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985

Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Graham v. Connor · Griffin v. Breckenridge · Tennessee v. Garner

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

  1. “[I]nsofar as the concept of discretionary function is relevant at all in the immunity sphere,....”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “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, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “any claim based upon the exercise or performance or the failure to exercise or perform a discretionary function or duty on the part of a public employer or public employee, acting within the scope of his office or employment, whether or not the discretion involved is abused.”
    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.