Lopez v. Vanderwater & Howard Wheeler Gamble’s Empirical Analysis
620 F.2d 1229 · 1980
Citation profile
59 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 99 later decisions — most recently February 2022 · most notably Browning v. Clinton (2002), Gibson v. City of Chicago (1990)
59 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 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
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Gideon v. Wainwright · Monroe v. Pape · Pierson v. Ray · United States v. Grinnell Corp.
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 99 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The irregular arraignment, conviction, and sentence were not, however, the only acts of Vanderwater that proximately caused Lopez’ injury. Vanderwater acted as prosecutor. He made the decision to prosecute. He determined the offense to be charged, originally contemplating criminal trespass and then deciding on theft of the key. He prepared a written charge on the “Notice to Appear” form. He caused Gamble to sign the blank complaint form and the next day had that form completed by the State’s Attorney’s staff. He prepared a guilty plea and waiver of jury and caused a signature, which he says was Lopez’, to be placed thereon. Finally, Vanderwater presented the charge and plea form to himself with the expectation that it would be the basis for an unconstitutional conviction and sentence. These acts were not functions “normally performed by a judge.” They were not, therefore, “judicial acts,” and are not, as a consequence, protected by judicial immunity.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[the judge] was able to take his prosecutorial acts because he was cloaked with the office of judge. His use of that office to prosecute Lopez was action under color of state law,” id. at 1237 ), cert. dismissed, 449 U.S. 1028 , 101 S.Ct. 601 , 66 L.Ed.2d 491 (1980); Harris v. Harvey, 605 F.2d 330 , 337 (7th Cir.1979) (judge who acted in excess of his jurisdiction still was found to have acted under color of state law by”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“[a]ction taken by a state official who is cloaked with official power and who purports to be acting under color of official right ... is taken under color of state law whether or not the action is in fact in excess of the authority actually delegated to the official.”
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.