Higazy v. Templeton’s Empirical Analysis
505 F.3d 161 · 2007
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 125 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Pearson v. Callahan (2009), Sykes v. Anderson (2010)
23 federal appellate · 7 district · 2 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 18 U.S.C. § 1001 (Comprehensive Thrift and Bank Fraud Prosecution and Taxpayer Recovery Act of 1990) · 18 U.S.C. § 1962 (§ 901 of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) · 18 U.S.C. § 2384 · 18 U.S.C. § 3142 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3144 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 32 · 18 U.S.C. § 844
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Anderson v. Creighton
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 125 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(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 acts were unlawful.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“could reasonably foresee that his misconduct would contribute to an independent decision that results in a deprivation of liberty”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Ejven where the law is 'clearly established’ and the scope of an official's permissible conduct is 'clearly defined,' the qualified immunity defense also protects an official if it was 'objectively reasonable' for him at the time of the challenged action to believe his acts were lawful.”). . See also U.S. v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 734 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993) (”
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.