Barnes v. Dorsey’s Empirical Analysis
480 F.2d 1057 · 1973
Citation profile
54 federal appellate · 10 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 104 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2019 · most notably Imbler v. Pachtman (1976), Polk County v. Dodson (1981)
54 federal appellate · 10 district · 7 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Pierson v. Ray · Jenkins v. McKeithen · Brewer v. United States · Florida Citrus Exposition, Inc. v. Hungerford Construction 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 104 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In regards to Moss, the plaintiff has alleged facts that purportedly demonstrate that Moss was not properly acting within his capacity as a prosecutor. Since we think that the facts alleged fall within acts that may be categorized as prosecutorial, rather than investigatory, functions, dismissal as to Moss was proper. When a prosecutor is acting within the scope of his proper prosecutorial capacity, these actions are cloaked with the same immunity granted to judges. Wilhelm v. Turner, supra 431 F.2d [177] at 182-183 [(8th Cir.1970) ]. We specifically reserve the question of the liability of a prosecutor acting within an investigatory capacity.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the question of the liability of a prosecutor acting within an investigatory capacity”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Briggs v. Goodwin“obvious neglect or intentional mistreatment.”
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.