Hartman v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis
2006
Citation profile
362 federal appellate · 320 district · 16 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 1,427 later decisions (21 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2025 · most notably Ashcroft v. Iqbal (2009), Wilkie v. Robbins (2007)
362 federal appellate · 320 district · 16 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedMoore v. Hartman (from District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals)
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle · Pickering v. Board of Education of Township High School District 205 Will County Illinois · Heck v. Humphrey
Cited together with Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Pearson v. Callahan · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics
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 1,427 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he law is settled that as a general matter the First Amendment prohibits government officials from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions ... for speaking out ....”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Demonstrating that there was no probable cause for the underlying criminal charge will tend to reinforce the retaliation evidence and show that retaliation was the but-for basis for instigating the prosecution, while establishing the existence of probable cause will suggest that prosecution would have occurred even without a retaliatory motive.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“A Bivens (or § 1983) action for retaliatory prosecution ioill not be brought against the prosecutor, who is absolutely immune from liability for the decision to prosecute. Instead, the defendant will be a nonprosecutor, an official, like an inspector here, who may have influenced the prosecutorial decision but did not himself make it, and the cause of action will not be strictly for retaliatory prosecution, but for successful retaliatory inducement to prosecute. The consequence is that a plaintiff like Moore must show that the nonprosecuting official acted in retaliation, and must also show that he induced the prosecutor to bring charges that would not have been initiated without his urging.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Rehberg v. Paulk · Rehberg v. Paulk
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.