Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 466 U.S. 522 - Pulliam v. Allen

Pulliam v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis

1984

Citation profile

1,429
cited by 1,429 later decisions
33
cited 33 times by the Supreme Court
34
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

379 federal appellate · 180 district · 229 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 1,429 later decisions (33 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Heck v. Humphrey (1994), Kentucky v. Graham (1985)

379 federal appellate · 180 district · 229 state decisions — followed in 34 states

518019841990200020102020decided

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

reviewedAllen v. Burke (from Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals)

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Younger v. Harris · Blum v. Stenson · City of Los Angeles v. Lyons · Gerstein v. Pugh

Cited together with Stump v. Sparkman · Pierson v. Ray · Imbler v. Pachtman · 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 1,429 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “judicial immunity is not a bar to prospective injunctive relief against a judicial officer acting in her judicial capacity.”
    14 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “the risk that judges will be harassed and their independence compromised by the threat of having to defend themselves against suits by disgruntled litigants,”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “to provide an independent avenue for protection of federal constitutional rights. The remedy was considered necessary because “state courts were being used to harass and injure individuals, either because the state courts were powerless to stop deprivations or were in league with those who were bent upon abrogation of federally protected rights.”
    5 later decisions 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.