Curtis v. Bembenek’s Empirical Analysis
48 F.3d 281 · 1995
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 5 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 69 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2018 · most notably Reed v. City of Chicago (1996), Rehberg v. Paulk (2012)
26 federal appellate · 5 district ·
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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Haines v. Kerner · Heck v. Humphrey · Malley v. Briggs · Albright v. Oliver · Missouri v. Continential Insurance Cos.
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 69 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“was made under oath and subject to cross-examination, [w]e see no principled basis for distinguishing between [adversarial] pretrial proceedings and the trial on the merits in determining whether absolute immunity should be granted to a police officer witness.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a witness who knows he may be subjected to costly and time-consuming civil litigation for offering testimony that he is unable to substantiate may consciously or otherwise shade his testimony in such a way as to limit potential liability.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the policy considerations for granting absolute immunity to witnesses testifying at trial apply with equal force to witness testimony in adversarial pretrial settings.”
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.