Taylor v. Kavanagh’s Empirical Analysis
640 F.2d 450 · 1981
Citation profile
49 federal appellate · 11 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 124 later decisions — most recently April 2016 · most notably Connie Robison v. Susan R. Via and Harold Harrison (1987), Ying Jing Gan v. City of New York (1993)
49 federal appellate · 11 district · 2 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. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Santobello v. New York · Allen v. McCurry · Imbler v. Pachtman · Preiser v. Rodriguez · Butz v. Economou
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 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Selkin v. Mielke · Powers v. Coe“[T]he falsification of evidence and the coercion of witnesses ... have been held to be prosecutorial activities for which absolute immunity applies. Similarly, because a prosecutor is acting as an advocate in a judicial proceeding, the solicitation and subornation of perjured testimony, the withholding of evidence, or the introduction of illegally-seized evidence at trial does not create liability in damages. The rationale for this approach is sound, for these protected ac tivities, while deplorable, involve decisions of judgment affecting the course of a prosecution.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[O]nly a "good faith” immunity is available where a prosecutor testifies falsely as a witness, distributes extraneous statements to the press designed to harm a suspect's reputation, or participates in an illegal search that violates a suspect's Fourth Amendment rights. Decisions to engage in conduct of this character are not directly related to the delicate judgments prosecutors must make concerning the development of the Government's case. The "investigatory" and "administrative” work involved in testifying before a grand jury, accumulating evidence, and disseminating information to the press is analogous to the tasks performed by the police, and therefore only the same qualified "good faith” immunity is available.”
2 later decisions 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.