Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 718 F.2d 1151 - Mosrie v. Barry

Mosrie v. Barry’s Empirical Analysis

718 F.2d 1151 · 1983

Citation profile

89
cited by 89 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
4
states following
December 2023
most recently cited

35 federal appellate · 27 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 89 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2023 · most notably Siegert v. Gilley (1991), Doe v. United States Department of Justice (1985)

35 federal appellate · 27 district · 6 state decisions

39019831990200020102020decided

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 Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Parratt v. Taylor · Paul v. Davis · Goss v. Lopez

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

  1. “requires that the government either have formally deprived one of a legal right ... or have so severely impaired one’s ability to take advantage of a legal right, such as a right to be considered for government contracts or employment or a right to seek non-government employment, that the government can be said to have “foreclosed” one’s ability to take advantage of it and thus extinguished the right.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The harms suffered by appellant in this case do not meet the Paul v. Davis requirement of loss of a government position or change in legal status. Appellant was merely transferred laterally ... To find the lateral transfer a deprivation would be inconsistent with Paul v. Davis’s repeated emphasis on “loss of government employment.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “. . . that financial harm is caused by government imposed stigma does not transform an interest in reputation into a liberty interest... . the Court [in Paul v. Davis] held that defamation alone is not enough to give rise to a due process right; “other governmental action” is required. Proof of damages caused by a defamation does not meet that requirement. The Court was well aware of the “frequently drastic effect of the ‘stigma’ which may result from-defamation by the government,” . . .; it was also aware that actual monetary damages are often proved ... in defamation actions . . . .’”
    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.