599 F. Supp. 1421 - Doe v. McFaul’s Empirical Analysis
1984
Citation profile
4 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 22 later decisions — most recently September 2010
4 federal appellate · 3 district · 7 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. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 5633
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Estelle v. Gamble
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“State officials must not be required to act as pseudo-appellate courts scrutinizing the orders of judges, [citation omitted], but subjecting them to liability for executing an order because the order did not measure up to statutory standards would have just that effect. To allow plaintiffs to bring suit any time a [S]tate agent executes a judicial order which does not fulfill every legal requirement would make the agent a lightning rod for harassing litigation aimed at judicial orders, [citation omitted] * * * * * * The fearless and unhesitating execution of court orders is essential if the court’s authority and ability to function are to remain uncompromised, but State officers subject to litigation might neglect the execution of those orders, [citation omitted]. Also, a fear of bringing down litigation on the officer executing the order might color a court’s judgment in some cases, [citations and brackets omitted]. If the court ignored the danger of such suits, tension between trial judges and those officials responsible for enforcing their orders inevitably would result, [citation omitted]. The public interest demands strict adherence to judicial decrees, [citation omitted] especially with respect to emergency detention orders, for immediate treatment often is necessary and the class of officials qualified to carry out the order is limited.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Shelton v. Wallace“It follows logically that [under the doctrine of qualified judicial immunity] the remaining defendants — the County, the Commissioners, and Judge Spellacy — cannot be subject to liability for their failure to overrule, countermand, challenge, or otherwise interfere with Judge Harris’ facially valid order. Plaintiffs point to no case law supporting the proposition that a [S]tate official violates the Constitution or civil rights statutes by failing to attack a [S]tate court judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Shelton v. Wallace“Consequently, there has been recognized in the juvenile system a `quid pro quo' under which juveniles who are placed in adult facilities without the safeguards of due process that are enjoyed by adults will receive in return rehabilitative treatment rather than mere punitive incarceration.”
1 later decision 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.