Ray v. Pickett’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

24 federal appellate · 8 district · 8 state decisions

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

1. “effect of filing [a parole-violation] report is merely to trigger an inquiry by another officer that may or may not lead to an administrative proceeding.” Id. at 373 . These duties were analogous to those”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Nelson v. Balazic · Anton v. Getty

2. “The Supreme Court has consistently held that government officials are entitled to some type of immunity from suits for damages. “[Pjublic officers require this protection to shield them from undue interference with their duties and from potentially disabling threats of lia bility.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 806 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2732 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). Two types of immunity defenses have generally been recognized: absolute immunity and qualified immunity. Absolute immunity defeats a suit at the outset, provided that the official’s actions are within the scope of the immunity. Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409 , 419 n. 13, 96 S.Ct. 984 , 989 n. 13, 47 L.Ed.2d 128 (1976). Qualified immunity is asserted as a defense, and shields government officials performing discretionary functions from civil liability if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Harlow v. Fitzgerald, supra, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738 . “[Ojfficials whose special functions or constitutional status require[] complete protection from suit” are accorded absolute immunity. Id. at 807 , 102 S.Ct. at 2732 . Absolute immunity from suit has been accorded to judges, Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349 , 98 S.Ct. 1099 , 55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978), prosecutors, Imbler v. Pachtman, supra, legislators, Eastland v. United States Servicemen’s Fund, 421 U.S. 491 , 95 S.Ct. 1813 , 44 L.Ed.2d 324 (1975), and to federal agen”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lucas v. State

3. “We believe that the function of an arresting parole officer is more akin to that of a police officer and sufficiently distinguishable from the quasi-judicial duties performed by a parole board member in deciding parole cases.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mee v. Ortega