Price v. Moody’s Empirical Analysis
677 F.2d 676 · 1982
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 65 later decisions — most recently April 2012 · most notably Gobel v. Maricopa County (1989), 562 F. Supp. 1180 - Rose v. Arkansas Valley Environmental & Utility Authority (1983)
8 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Estelle v. Gamble · Haines v. Kerner · Imbler v. Pachtman
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 65 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[p]rosecutors enjoy immunity from section 1983 actions 'so long as the actions complained of appear to be within the scope of prosecutorial duties.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State's case”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Taking Price’s allegations as true, as we must, it can hardly be asserted that Moody’s charged actions were within the scope of prosecutorial duties. Moody’s brief in this Court, in essence, stresses that Missouri Sheriffs, and not Missouri prosecutors, have the duty to maintain humane conditions in Missouri jails, see Tatum v. Houser, 642 F.2d 253, 254 (8th Cir.1981) (per curiam), and that a prosecutor has no power or authority to order a prisoner to be subjected to barbaric treatment. The fact that Moody may lack state statutory authority over Missouri jails is not dispositive of the section 1983 claim if Moody ordered Price to be mistreated and if the mistreatment occurred as a result of his orders. Thus, the district court erred in holding that Moody was shielded by absolute prosecutorial immunity.”
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.