Lawyer v. Kernodle’s Empirical Analysis
721 F.2d 632 · 1983
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently August 2021 · most notably Myers v. Morris (1987), Ancata v. Prison Health Services, Inc. (1985)
8 federal appellate · 3 district · 10 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 Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Butz v. Economou · Metcalf & Eddy v. Mitchell · Burkes v. Callion · Bromund v. Holt
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“ordinarily is used, one whose duty it becomes to bury a deceased person has no right of ownership over the corpse; but, in the broader meaning of the term, he has what has been called a”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“We think it clear that [the doctor], in performing the autopsy of [decedent] for [the county], was acting under color of state law and was exercising his professional judgment and discretion. His services were engaged pursuant to statutory authority and his opinion as to the cause of death became the basis of the government’s decision whether to bring criminal charges. . . . Since he was engaged under the statute to perform official duties, he was performing those duties under color of state law and he clearly enjoyed the same immunity privilege the coroner could assert.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“[w]hen a defendant performs an act under a statute creating a public duty, that defendant’s duty is to the public and not to any individual.... The exception, of course, is when the statute also was intended to create a private cause of action. We do not find that to be the case here.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.