Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 565 F.3d 214 - Davis v. Tarrant County

Davis v. Tarrant County’s Empirical Analysis

565 F.3d 214 · 2009

Citation profile

30
cited by 30 later decisions
1
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 30 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Lacey v. Maricopa County (2012), Kerry Heckman, on Behalf of Themselves and All Other Persons Similarly Situated v. Williamson County (2012)

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

220200920102020decided

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. § 1988

Relies on Mitchell v. Forsyth · Ex Parte: Edward T Young · Edelman v. Jordan · Butz v. Economou · Board of the County Commissioners of Bryan County v. Brown

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

  1. “[The Fifth Circuit] has adopted a four-factor test for determining whether a judge's actions were judicial in nature: (1) whether the precise act complained of is a normal judicial function; (2) whether the acts occurred in the courtroom or appropriate adjunct spaces such as the judge's chambers; (3) whether the controversy centered around a case pending before the court; and (4) whether the acts arose directly out of a visit to the judge in his official capacity. These factors are broadly construed in favor of immunity.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[W]hether an act by a judge is a 'judicial' one relate[s] to the nature of the act itself, i.e., whether it is a function normally performed by a judge, and to the expectations of the parties, i.e., whether they dealt with the judge in his judicial capacity.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he relevant inquiry is the 'nature' and 'function' of the act, not the 'act itself.' In other words, [a court should] look to the particular act's relation to a general function normally performed by a judge....”
    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.