Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 556 F.2d 231 - Thompson v. Burke

Thompson v. Burke’s Empirical Analysis

556 F.2d 231 · 1977

Citation profile

83
cited by 83 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
March 2016
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 11 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 83 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2016 · most notably Carey v. Piphus (1978), Sellars v. Procunier (1981)

23 federal appellate · 11 district · 3 state decisions

51019771980199020002010decided

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

Relies on Scheuer v. Rhodes · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Estelle v. Gamble · Morrissey v. Brewer · Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society

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

  1. “McArdle alleged that Tronetti violated his [constitutional] rights by making a false diagnosis of paranoid schizophrenia. Tronetti made his psychiatric examination of McArdle at the request of and furnished a written report of that evaluation to Judge Connelly. Tronetti was, therefore, functioning as an arm of the court. As such, he was an integral part of the judicial process and is protected by the same absolute judicial immunity that protects Judge Connelly.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “We agree with the Court of Appeals that respondent’s activities were intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process, and thus were functions to which the reasons for absolute immunity apply with full force. We have no occasion to consider whether like or similar reasons require immunity for those aspects of the prosecutor’s responsibility that cast him in the role of an administrator or investigative officer rather than that of advocate.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “The work of a Pennsylvania State Parole Board member certainly includes facets of quasi-judicial duties in affecting the length of sentences, nonetheless they are not judicial officers. They are in reality executive officers carrying out the policy of the State in respect to probation and parole.”
    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.