Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 41 F.3d 1497 - Spivey v. Elliott

Spivey v. Elliott’s Empirical Analysis

41 F.3d 1497 · 1995

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
1
states following
August 2004
most recently cited

11 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

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 · Siegert v. Gilley · Spivey v. Elliott

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

  1. “[I]n the interest of efficiency and collegiality on this Court, where there are differing views as to the substantive right, this panel has chosen to withdraw all of its prior opinion which relates to whether the complaint alleges a constitutional right so that the opinion will serve as no precedent on that issue.”
    7 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “that there was no 'clearly established' constitutional right alleged.” Id. at 1498. The panel stated that, in that case, further analysis regarding the substantive right alleged would be”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[A] determination of whether a right is clearly established will always require no more, and will often require less, analysis than is required to decide whether the allegedly violated constitutional right actually exists in the first place. Moreover, deciding the case on the 'clear establishment' element comports with the well-established principle disfavoring reaching substantive constitutional issues if a case can be resolved on other grounds.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.