Knell v. Bensinger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions

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 62 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. ““[I]n exercising their informed discretion, officials must be sensitive and alert to the protections afforded prisoners by the developing judicial scrutiny of prison conditions and practices.””

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Little v. Walker · Lock v. Jenkins

2. ““. . . state executive officials do not enjoy an absolute immunity from personal liability as to all acts performed within the scope of their official duties (citations omitted). Rather, in varying scope, a qualified immunity is available to officers of the executive branch of Government, the variation being dependent upon the scope of discretion and responsibilities of the office and all the circumstances as they reasonably appeared at the time of the action on which liability is sought to be based. It is the existence of reasonable grounds for the belief coupled with good faith belief formed at the time and in light of all the circumstances, that affords a basis for qualified immunity of executive officers for acts performed in the course of official conduct. . The policy consideration underlying the concept of immunity . . . for public officials is the necessity of insuring principled and conscientious governmental decision making by affording some measure of freedom from fear or personal liability for the official exercise of discretion and the performance of required duties.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Lock v. Jenkins

3. “if he knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within his ■ sphere of official responsibility would violate the constitutional rights of the student affected, or if he took the action with the malicious intention to cause a deprivation of constitutional rights or other injury to the student. A compensatory award will be appropriate only if the school board member has acted with such an impermissible motivation or with such disregard of the student’s clearly established constitutional rights that his action cannot reasonably be characterized as being in good faith.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tucker v. City of Montgomery Board of Commissioners