Gomes’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
9 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently February 2025 · most notably R.C.S. v. A.O.L. (2012), Albuquerque Commons Partnership v. City Council of Albuquerque (2008)
9 district · 4 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
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Santosky v. Kramer · Malley v. Briggs · Carey v. Piphus
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.
“First, we ask whether the plaintiffs’ allegations, if true, establish a constitutional violation. Lawrence v. Reed, 406 F.3d 1224, 1230 (10th Cir.2005). If the allegations do not meet that standard, we must dismiss the claim. Second, if the plaintiffs have alleged a constitutional violation, we examine “whether the law was clearly established at the time the alleged violations occurred.” Roska [ex rel. Roska v. Peterson, 328 F.3d 1230, 1247 (10th Cir.2003) (Roska II)]. The law is clearly established if a reasonable official in the defendant’s circumstances would understand that her conduct violated the plaintiff’s constitutional right. Moore v. Guthrie, 438 F.3d 1036, 1042 (10th Cir.2006). Recently, the Supreme Court has “shifted the qualified immunity analysis from a scavenger hunt for prior cases with precisely the same facts toward the more relevant inquiry of whether the law put officials on fair notice that the described conduct was unconstitutional.” Pierce v. Gilchrist, 359 F.3d 1279, 1298 (10th Cir.2004) (discussing Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U.S. 730 , 122 S.Ct. 2508 , 153 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002)). Thus, government officials must make “reasonable applications of the prevailing law to their own circumstances,” Currier v. Doran, 242 F.3d 905, 923 (10th Cir.2001) (internal quotation marks omitted), and they “can still be on notice that their conduct violates established law even in novel factual circumstances.” Hope, 536 U.S. at 741 , 122 S.Ct. 2508 .... Finally, if the law was cle”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“such as emergency circumstances which pose an immediate threat to the safety of the child). . This dearth of precedent may be the result of few, if any, other states having a similar deferral procedure. . Under section 19-3-501(1), C.R.S.2011, such authorization proceeds from a”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. People ex rel. N.G.
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.