Doninger v. Niehoff’s Empirical Analysis
642 F.3d 334 · 2011
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 12 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Pearson v. Callahan
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 105 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]o be clearly established, a right must be sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would [have understood] that what he is doing violates that right. In other words, existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.... [T]he right allegedly violated must be estab lished, not as a broad general proposition, but in a particularized sense so that the contours of the right are clear to a reasonable official.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Cjourts have described the tests these cases suggest as complex and often difficult to apply.”); see, e.g, Doninger v. Niehoff, 642 F.3d 334 , 353 (2d Cir.2011) (“The law governing restrictions on student speech can be difficult and confusing, even for lawyers, law professors, and judges. The relevant Supreme Court cases can be hard to reconcile, and courts often struggle with which standard applies in any particular case.”); Guiles ex rel. Guiles v. Marineau, 461 F.3d 320 , 326, 331 (2d Cir.2006) (acknowledging”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“it is not entirely clear whether Tinker's rule (as opposed to other potential standards) applies to all student speech not falling within the holdings of Fraser, Hazelwood, or Morse [v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393 , 127 S.Ct. 2618 , 168 L.Ed.2d 290 (2007) ].”
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.