Stump v. Sparkman’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
1,349 federal appellate · 655 district · 648 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 5,345 later decisions (55 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2025 · most notably Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982), Mitchell v. Forsyth (1985)
1,349 federal appellate · 655 district · 648 state decisions — followed in 40 states
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.
Appellate journey
reviewedLinda Kay Sparkman and Leo Sparkman v. Ora E. McFarlin (from Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Relies on Imbler v. Pachtman · Pierson v. Ray · Bradley v. Fisher · Pargoud v. United States
Cited together with Imbler v. Pachtman · Pierson v. Ray · Butz v. Economou · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Forrester v. White
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 5,345 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A judge will not be deprived of immunity because the action he took was in error, was done maliciously, or was in excess of his authority; rather, he will be subject to liability only when he has acted in the 'clear absence of all jurisdiction.'”
323 later decisions quote this exact passage“A judicial act is an act which involves exercise of discretion or judgment. But the act of an administrative or ministerial officer does not become judicial simply because it requires some discretion and judgment; it becomes judicial only when there is an opportunity to be heard, and the production and weighing of evidence and a decision thereon. Service on a Board with only legislative and administrative powers does not constitute a judicial act, nor does the appointment of persons to such boards ... The application of the doctrine of judicial immunity is restricted to its simple objective of protecting judicial freedom in the process of deciding civil and criminal cases. Where the initiative and independence of the judiciary is not effectively impaired, the doctrine of judicial immunity does not hold, (citations omitted)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“That there were not two contending litigants did not make Judge Stump’s act any less judicial. Courts and judges often do act ex parte. They issue search warrants in this manner, for example, often without any ‘case’ having been instituted, without any ‘case’ ever being instituted, and without the issuance of the warrant being subject to appeal. Yet it would not destroy a judge’s immunity if it is alleged and offer of proof is made that in issuing a warrant he acted erroneously and without principle.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Korotki v. Goughan
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.