Dolihite v. Maughon’s Empirical Analysis
74 F.3d 1027 · 1996
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently August 2022 · most notably Cottrell v. Caldwell (1996), Harbert International, Inc. v. James (1998)
34 federal appellate · 2 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
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Estelle v. Gamble · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Bell v. Wolfish
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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“evidentiary sufficiency issues that are part and parcel of the core qualified immunity issues, i.e., the legal issues.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Such expert medical testimony, making reference to specific deficiencies in a defendant’s treatment and specific medically accepted standards might, in conjunction with the specific facts of a case, persuade a court that the medical defendant’s actions in the case were clearly as great a departure from appropriate medical standards as previous departures found unconstitutional in prior cases — i.e., might persuade a court that a reasonable professional in defendant’s shoes would have known that his challenged actions (or inaction) violated plaintiffs constitutional rights.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"Thus, `pre-existing law must dictate, that is, truly compel (not just suggest or allow or raise a question about) the conclusion for every like-situated, reasonable government agent that what defendant is doing violates federal law in the circumstances.' Lassiter v. Alabama A & M Univ., Bd. of Trustees, 28 F.3d 1146, 1150 (11th Cir.1994) (en banc)."”
2 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.