Sweeney v. Abramovitz’s Empirical Analysis
1978
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 1996
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
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. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1338 · 28 U.S.C. § 1441 · 28 U.S.C. § 1443 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Bordenkircher v. Hayes · Illinois v. City of Milwaukee · Georgia v. Rachel · American Well Works Company v. Layne & Bowler Company E · Smith v. Kansas City Title & Trust Co.
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If the question of what constitutes probable cause to bring a § 1983 action is determined according to state law, there is a possibility that the standard will be set so high in some state courts as to permit malicious prosecution suits to be brought in response to legitimate § 1983 actions. It is of course possible that § 1983 actions, like any other judicial process, may be abused. But determining the standards for a malicious prosecution action requires the delicate balancing of the legitimate interests of public officials to be free from unfounded § 1983 suits against the necessity of preserving plaintiffs’ ability to vindicate their federal rights undeterred by fear of being subjected to unfounded malicious prosecution suits. Such a balancing may itself be a federal question sufficient to invoke § 1331 jurisdiction. Predicating federal jurisdiction on this type of “arising under” analysis may not be appropriate every time a successful defendant, sued under a federal statute, claims malicious prosecution by his erstwhile plaintiff. But it is entirely appropriate to recognize such jurisdiction here to make sure that a federal forum is available to guard against the possibility that a malicious prosecution action might be used to deter the use of § 1983 and thereby undermine the important rights that statute was enacted to protect.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“whether a properly pleaded state-created claim itself presents a pivotal question of federal law, for example because an act of Congress must be construed or federal common law governs some disputed aspect of the claim.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“right to relief depend[ed] upon the construction or application of the Constitution or laws of the United States.”
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.