Richardson v. Selsky’s Empirical Analysis
5 F.3d 616 · 1993
Citation profile
16 federal appellate ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 120 later decisions — most recently June 2017 · most notably Young v. County of Fulton (1998), Townes v. City of New York (1999)
16 federal appellate ·
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 Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Wolff v. McDonnell · Carnegie v. United States
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 120 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“we may affirm on any basis supported by the record, including grounds on which the district court did not rely”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Prison officials are charged with knowledge of relevant decisional law, especially the decisions of the circuit in which they perform their official duties. In recent months, this Court has considered — but only today addressed — whether the law within this Circuit is clearly established that prisoners have a right to an independent examination of the credibility of confidential informants. As of March 1985, the law was not so clearly established. However, as Zavaro implied, there must be some evidence in the record of the informant’s reliability. One means of satisfying this standard is for prison officials contemporaneously and independently to assess the credibility of the informants, and to create and preserve a record of that assessment. Such a record should be available for administrative or judicial review to insure that the conclusion reached by the prison disciplinary officials satisfies due process. 5 F.3d at 624 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(1) whether the right in question was defined with ‘reasonable specificity’; (2) whether the decisional law of the Supreme Court and the applicable circuit court support the existence of the right in question; and (3) whether under preexisting law a reasonable defendant official would have understood that his or her rights were unlawful.”
2 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.