Borello v. Allison’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

15 federal appellate ·

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

1. “[t]he Court’s jurisdiction extends to interlocutory appeals such as this one challenging a district court’s determina tion that a set of facts demonstrate a violation of “clearly established” constitutional law and preclude the defendants from proffering a qualified immunity defense. When deciding whether a public official is entitled to qualified immunity, we simply assume the disputed facts in the light most favorable [to the plaintiff], and then decide, under those facts, whether the [defendants] violated any of [the plaintiffs] clearly established constitutional rights.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Steidl v. Fermon

2. “In the present case Richard Morgan is entitled to qualified immunity with respect to plaintiffs federal claims because the selection of Spirit Week activities was a discretionary act. Plaintiffs retaliation claims [sic] alleges that her children were denied special education services, excessively and unfairly disciplined and that she was slandered as a result of speaking out against Opposite Sex Day.... The right to be free from exposure to an even-handed educational activity was not clearly established at the time of the occurrence complained of.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 459 F. Supp. 2d 766 - Stanley v. Carrier Mills-Stonefort School District No. 2

3. “[T]he “contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates the right. This is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful, but it is to say that in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 871 F. Supp. 2d 811 - Weeks v. Hodges