Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 403 F.2d 642 - Jack Silver v. Fred R. Dickson

Jack Silver v. Fred R. Dickson’s Empirical Analysis

403 F.2d 642 · 1968

Citation profile

74
cited by 74 later decisions
7
states following
July 2000
most recently cited

40 federal appellate · 8 district · 8 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently July 2000 · most notably McCray v. Maryland (1972), Sellars v. Procunier (1981)

40 federal appellate · 8 district · 8 state decisions

52019681970198019902000decided

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 Pierson v. Ray · Tenney v. Brandhove · Hoffman v. Halden · Robichaud v. Ronan · Clark v. Washington

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

  1. “(T)he members of the California Adult Authority ... are, while employed in the processing of applications for parole, performing quasi-judicial functions. They therefore have immunity from suits for damages under the Civil Rights Act, just as do other public employees engaged in the performance of quasi-judicial duties.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““If members of a state parole board were subject to federal damage suits under the Civil Rights Act, by reason of their official and discretionary acts, the potential interference with state functioning would not be limited to the individual case in which damages were sought. The monitary threat would, in all likelihood, exert a restricting influence on the overall functioning of the agency. And there would undoubtedly ensue an ‘appalling inflammation of delicate state-federal relationships.’ ” * * * [Citation omitted.] Id. at 643 .”
    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.