Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 555 F.2d 583 - Wolfel v. Sanborn

Wolfel v. Sanborn’s Empirical Analysis

555 F.2d 583 · 1977

Citation profile

34
cited by 34 later decisions
1
states following
September 2003
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 34 later decisions — most recently September 2003 · most notably Bellamy v. Bradley (1984), Standard Alliance Industries, Inc. v. Black Clawson Co. (1978)

25 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

2001977198019902000decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1923 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Scheuer v. Rhodes · Morrissey v. Brewer · Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Pierson v. Ray · Wood v. Strickland

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

  1. “[A] school board member is not immune from liability for damages under § 1983 if he knew or reasonably should have known that the action he took within the 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.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “such that there can be but one reasonable conclusion as to the proper verdict.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.