Warney v. Monroe County’s Empirical Analysis
587 F.3d 113 · 2009
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 38 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Fields v. Wharrie (2014), Giraldo v. Kessler (2012)
6 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly · Ashcroft v. Iqbal · Brady v. State of Maryland · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Mitchell v. Forsyth
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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Goldstein’s] claims focus upon a certain kind of administrative obligation — a kind that itself is directly connected with the conduct of a trial. Here, unlike with other claims related to administrative decisions, an individual prosecutor’s error in the plaintiffs specific criminal trial constitutes an essential element of the plaintiffs claim. The administrative obligations at issue here are thus unlike administrative duties concerning, for example, workplace hiring, payroll administration, the maintenance of physical facilities, and the like. Moreover,' the types of activities on which Goldstein’s claims focus necessarily require legal knowledge and the exercise of related discretion, e.g., in determining what information should be included in the training or the supervision or the information-system management. And in that sense also Goldstein’s claims are unlike claims of, say, unlawful discrimination in hiring employees. Given these features of the case before us, we believe absolute immunity must follow.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“Unlike the order denying immunity, the order denying Monroe County's motion to dismiss is not immediately appealable pursuant to the collateral order doctrine. ... The elements of a Monell claim, and the extent to which prosecutors in New York are agents of the state (as opposed to a county) are not inextricably intertwined with the question of absolute immunity. We therefore decline to exercise pendent appellate jurisdiction over these issues at this time.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Ogunkoya v. Monaghan“The proper and useful focus for ascertaining the function being served by a prosecutor’s act is ... on the pendency of court proceedings that engage a prosecutor as an advocate for the state.”). 140 . Id. at 124 (citing Van de Kamp, 129 S.Ct. 855 ). 141 . See Van de Kamp, 129 S.Ct. at 862-63 . 142 .”
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.