Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 582 U.S. 120 - Ziglar v. Abbasi

Ziglar v. Abbasi’s Empirical Analysis

582 U.S. 120 · 2017

Citation profile

475
cited by 475 later decisions
14
cited 14 times by the Supreme Court
12
states following
June 2026
most recently cited

91 federal appellate · 40 district · 27 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 475 later decisions (14 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2026 · most notably Hernandez v. Mesa (2017), Egbert v. Boule (2022)

91 federal appellate · 40 district · 27 state decisions — followed in 12 states

287020172020decided

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. § 1346 (Federal Tort Claims Act) · 28 U.S.C. § 2679 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 42 U.S.C. § 1997E · 42 U.S.C. § 2000D

Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Anderson v. Creighton

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

  1. “expanding the Bivens remedy is now a 'disfavored' judicial activity.”
    61 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “A case might differ in a meaningful way because of the rank of the officers involved; the constitutional right at issue; the generality or specificity of the official action; the extent of judicial guidance as to how an officer should respond to the problem or emergency to be confronted; the statutory or other legal mandate under which the officer was operating; the risk of disruptive intrusion by the Judiciary into the functioning of other branches; or the presence of potential special factors that previous Bivens cases did not consider.”
    36 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “if there is an alternative remedial structure present in a certain case, that alone may limit the power of the Judiciary to infer a new Bivens cause of action.”
    24 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.