Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 58 F.2d 948 - Manning v. Ketcham

Manning v. Ketcham’s Empirical Analysis

58 F.2d 948 · 1932

Citation profile

28
cited by 28 later decisions
3
states following
February 1989
most recently cited

19 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently February 1989 · most notably Kenney v. Fox (1956), Ryan v. Scoggin (1957)

19 federal appellate · 1 district · 4 state decisions

120193219401950196019701980decided

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 Bradley v. Fisher · Forsyth v. City of Hammond · Freeport Water Company v. City of Freeport · George Collins v. James a Johnston · State ex rel. Egan v. Wolever

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

  1. “There is a general principle of universal application to all grades of judicial officers that a judge who is proceeding within the scope of his jurisdiction is not liable in an action for damages for the opinion he may deliver as such judge, nor for any rule or action he may take for the conduct of the business of his court. This principle, however, does not extend to make a judicial officer immune from damages for illegal acts which result in injuries to others or deprive them of their legal rights, when his acts are without the scope and limits of his jurisdiction. It follows that, if his illegal acts are without the scope and limits of his jurisdiction, he is liable, if damages result to others from such acts, whether he is actuated by malice, corrupt and impure motives or not. In the last state of case the fact that his motives are impure and bad are considered only as aggravating the damages. When the judge acts illegally without the limits of his jurisdiction, he becomes a trespasser, and is liable in damages as such. (Cases cited.)”
    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.