Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 727 F.2d 669 - Saxner v. Benson

Saxner v. Benson’s Empirical Analysis

727 F.2d 669 · 1984

Citation profile

54
cited by 54 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
December 2016
most recently cited

30 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 54 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently December 2016 · most notably Cleavinger v. Saxner (1985), Smith v. Rowe (1985)

30 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions

3801984199020002010decided

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.

Appellate journey

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2412 · 28 U.S.C. § 2413 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Butz v. Economou · Carey v. Piphus · Stump v. Sparkman

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

  1. “In view of the general restrictions on appellate review of a jury's award of monetary damages we will not substitute our judgment in these circumstances for that of the judge and jury who heard the testimony.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'United States' includes any agency and any official of the United States acting in his or her official capacity....”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “mental and emotional distress injuries attributable to the due process violations. The trial court found that the “anguish and frustration which flowed from the patent unfairness of the hearings and the fear that such unfair treatment would continue in the future in their administrative review and appeals, at their parole hearings, and in their day to day existence in the segregation unit unrelated to the issue of the length (35 days) of time served in segregation” contributed to their actual injuries.”
    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.