Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 626 F.2d 151 - Barton v. Malley

Barton v. Malley’s Empirical Analysis

626 F.2d 151 · 1980

Citation profile

32
cited by 32 later decisions
2
states following
July 2021
most recently cited

21 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently July 2021 · most notably E & T Realty v. Strickland (1987), United States v. Salazar (1983)

21 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions

23019801990200020102020decided

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. § 636

Relies on United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · Johnson v. Zerbst · Morrissey v. Brewer · Wolff v. McDonnell · Gagnon v. Scarpelli

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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “To support a defense of selective or discriminatory prosecution, a defendant bears the heavy burden of establishing, at least prima facie, (1) that, while others similarly situated have not generally been proceeded against because of conduct of the type forming the basis of the charge against him, he has been singled out for prosecution and (2) that the government’s discriminatory selection of him for prosecution has been invidious or in bad faith, i.e., based upon such impermissible considerations as race, religion or the desire to prevent his exercise of constitutional rights. These two essential elements are sometimes referred to as an “intentional and purposeful discrimination.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “based on intentional, purposeful discrimination stemming from impermissible considerations such as race, religion or the desire to prevent the exercise of other constitutionally secured rights.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[a]ggressively displaying one's antipathy to the ... system or daring the Government to enforce it does not create immunity from or a defense to, prosecution.”
    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.