Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 672 F.2d 668 - Hunter v. Auger

Hunter v. Auger’s Empirical Analysis

672 F.2d 668 · 1982

Citation profile

154
cited by 154 later decisions
7
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

82 federal appellate · 10 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 154 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Johnson v. Morel (1989), Blackburn v. Snow (1985)

82 federal appellate · 10 district · 9 state decisions

65019821990200020102020decided

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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Aguilar v. Texas · Bell v. Wolfish · Spinelli v. United States · Adams v. Williams

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

  1. “'[P]reservation of security and order within the prison,' was left to the side in defendants' criminal investigation of plaintiff.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “‘point[ing] to specific objective facts and rational inferences that they are entitled to draw from those facts in light of their experience.’ Inchoate, unspecified suspicions do not meet this definition.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Appellants have requested an award of reasonable damages. After carefully studying the record evidence, we find that there is no showing of facts justifying an award of more than nominal damages. We note that there is no evidence that appellants here were subjected to repeated incidents that intruded on [Fjourth [Ajmendment protections. Each complaint is based on one episode. Moreover, we believe that appellants’ [Fjourth [Ajmendment rights are fully vindicated here by the grant of declaratory and injunctive relief. Accordingly, we direct the district court, on remand, to allow nominal damages.”
    3 later decisions 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.