Phelps v. Hamilton’s Empirical Analysis
59 F.3d 1058 · 1995
Citation profile
24 federal appellate · 15 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 68 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Citizens for Responsible Government State Political Action Committee v. Donetta Davidson (2000), Gehl Group v. Koby (1995)
24 federal appellate · 15 district · 4 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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 2283
Relies on Erie Co v. Tompkins · Warth v. Seldin · Younger v. Harris · New York Times Co. v. Sullivan · Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. Doyle
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 68 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[W]e note that animus or ill-will between the parties does not, by itself, constitute retaliation. Indeed, no prosecutor looks favorably upon lawbreakers — whether they be purveyors of obscenity, drug dealers or those committing hate crimes. Thus, demonstrating a history of personal animosity between the prosecutor and the defendant is not, by itself, sufficient to show that a prosecution was commenced in bad faith. See Davila v. Texas, 489 F.Supp. 803, 809 (S.D.Tex.1980) (explaining that even a long and bitter personal history between the prosecutor and the defendant as well as the prosecutor’s zealousness in prosecuting the case did not bring the case within the bad faith exception to Younger [v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37 , 91 S.Ct. 746 , 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971)]). That is not to say that personal animosity — if shown to exist— may not be probative of an improper motive, but in and of itself,' such evidence cannot meet the burden of demonstrating that the prosecution was commenced in bad faith or to harass.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“(1) Criminal defamation is maliciously communicating to a person orally, in writing, or by any other means, false information tending to expose another living person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or to deprive him of the benefits of public confidence and social acceptance, or tending to degrade and vilify the memory of one who is dead and to scandalize or provoke his living relatives and friends. (2) In all prosecutions under this section the truth of the information communicated shall be admitted as evidence. It shall be a defense to a charge of criminal defamation if it is found that such matter was true. (3) Criminal defamation is a class A misdemeanor.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“in cases of proven harassment or prosecutions undertaken by state officials in bad faith without hope of obtaining a valid conviction and perhaps in other extraordinary circumstances where irreparable injury can be shown.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.