Mendenhall v. Goldsmith’s Empirical Analysis
59 F.3d 685 · 1995
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 7 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 54 later decisions — most recently June 2024 · most notably Steven Craig Cooper v. Larry E. Parrish (2000), Muzikowski v. Paramount Pictures Corp. (2003)
12 federal appellate · 7 district · 10 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 21 U.S.C. § 881 (§ 511 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Anderson v. Creighton · Santobello v. New York · Imbler v. Pachtman
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 54 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““We also believe that agency officials performing certain functions analogous to those of a prosecutor should be able to claim absolute immunity with respect to such acts. The decision to initiate administrative proceedings against an individual or corporation is very much like the prosecutor’s decision to initiate or move forward with a criminal prosecution. An agency official, like a prosecutor, may have broad discretion in deciding whether a proceeding should be brought and what sanctions should be sought.... “The discretion which executive officials exercise with respect to the initiation of administrative proceedings might be distorted if their immunity from damages arising from that decision was less than complete.... While there is not likely to be anyone willing and legally able to seek damages from the officials if they do not authorize the administrative proceeding, ... there is a serious danger that the decision to authorize proceedings will provoke a retaliatory response. An individual targeted by an administrative proceeding will react angrily and may seek vengeance in the courts.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]hat the alleged misconduct here arise in the context of a civil proceeding with a law enforcement purpose does not render absolute immunity inappropriate. Butz [v. Economou], 438 U.S. [478] at 515, 98 S.Ct. 2894, 2915 , 57 L.Ed.2d 895 [(1978)]; Schrob, 948 F.2d at 1411-12 ; Juide v. City of Ann Arbor, 839 F.Supp. 497, 502 (E.D.Mich.1993). The essential inquiry is whether Goldsmith was functioning in an enforcement role analogous to that of a prosecutor. Buckley [v. Fitzsimmons], — U.S. —, —, 113 S.Ct. [2606] at 2615, 125 L.Ed.2d 209 [(1993)]; Burns [v. Reed], 500 U.S. [478] at 490, 111 S.Ct. 1934, 1941 , 114 L.Ed.2d 547 [(1991)]; Butz, 438 U.S. at 515 , 98 S.Ct. at 2915 ; Imbler [v. Pachtman], 424 U.S. [409] at 431 n. 33, 96 S.Ct. 984 , 996 n. 33, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 [(1976)]. If so, he was entitled to absolute immunity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cole v. Sharp · Smith v. Power“the alleged misconduct here arose in the context of a civil proceeding with a law enforcement purpose does not render absolute immunity inappropriate. The essential inquiry is whether [the prosecutor] was functioning in an enforcement role analogous to that of a prosecutor.”
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.