Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 697 F.2d 309 - Alan McSurely v. John L. McClellan Thomas Ratliff, Individually and as Sometime Commonwealth Attorney for Pike County, Kentucky

Alan McSurely v. John L. McClellan Thomas Ratliff, Individually and as Sometime Commonwealth Attorney for Pike County, Kentucky’s Empirical Analysis

697 F.2d 309 · 1982

Citation profile

176
cited by 176 later decisions
6
cited 6 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
March 2017
most recently cited

59 federal appellate · 24 district · 14 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 176 later decisions (6 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2017 · most notably Mitchell v. Forsyth (1985), Burns v. Reed (1991)

59 federal appellate · 24 district · 14 state decisions

11001982199020002010decided

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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866)

Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Aguilar v. Texas · Imbler v. Pachtman · United States v. Ventresca

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

  1. “not [as] the protected decision to initiate prosecution, but rather the earlier, preliminary gathering of evidence which may blossom into a potential prosecution [and which therefore] is investigatory activity.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “(1) whether the petitioner is likely to prevail on the merits of his appeal, (2) whether, without a stay, the petitioner will be irreparably injured, (3) whether issuance of a stay will substantially harm other parties interested in the proceeding, and (4) wherein lies the public interest.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “appellate review of a denial of a motion for summary disposition must be available to ensure that government officials are fully protected against unnecessary trials under qualified immunity on the same basis as for absolute immunity.”
    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.