Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 545 F.2d 1171 - Thomas v. Younglove

Thomas v. Younglove’s Empirical Analysis

545 F.2d 1171 · 1976

Citation profile

24
cited by 24 later decisions
1
states following
May 2005
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 24 later decisions — most recently May 2005

15 federal appellate · 5 district · 1 state decisions

1301976198019902000decided

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

Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Wood v. Strickland · Tenney v. Brandhove · Jones v. Diamond

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

  1. ““The county officials ground their immunity argument alternatively on executive immunity and legislative immunity. This circuit recently adopted the doctrine of qualified immunity for executive officials in Navarette v. Proeunier, 536 F.2d 277 (9th Cir. 1976), and Mark v. Groff, 521 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir. 1975). These cases apply the U.S. Supreme Court decisions in Wood v. Strickland, 420 U.S. 308 , 95 S.Ct. 992 , 43 L.Ed.2d 214 (1975), and Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232 , 94 S.Ct. 1683 , 40 L.Ed.2d 90 (1974), which rejected absolute immunity. Each case now requires an analysis of ‘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 * * Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. at 247 , 94 S.Ct. 1685 , quoted in Mark v. Groff, 521 F.2d at 1379 . A defense of official immunity therefore raises issues of fact which cannot be resolved at the pleading stage. Navarette v. Procunier, supra; Jones v. Diamond, 519 F.2d 1090 (5th Cir. 1975); Rowley v. McMillan, 502 F.2d 1326 (4th Cir. 1974).” (Emphasis Added) Thomas v. Younglove, supra, at p. 1172.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Absolute legislative immunity is not always appropriate for county supervisors. The questioned activity may or may not share in the ‘speech and debate’ immunity conferred upon legislators____ The absolute legislative immunity recognized in Tenney v. Brandhove, [cite], applied in that case to state legislators and not necessarily to those other state or local officials whose duties can be characterized as partially ‘legislative.’ 545 F.2d at 1173 .”
    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.