Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 742 F.2d 977 - Tarter v. Raybuck

Tarter v. Raybuck’s Empirical Analysis

742 F.2d 977 · 1984

Citation profile

97
cited by 97 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
February 2015
most recently cited

57 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 97 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2015 · most notably New Jersey v. T. L. O. (1985), Wrenn v. Gould (1987)

57 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions

3501984199020002010decided

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)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988 · 42 U.S.C. § 2000E (§ 706 of the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964)

Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Hensley v. Eckerhart · Alyeska Pipeline Service Company v. Wilderness Society · Brown et al. v. Board of Education of Topeka et al. · Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District

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

  1. “Thus, for example, the authority of the school official [to maintain school discipline and order] would not justify a degrading body cavity search of a youth in order to determine whether a student was in possession of contraband in violation of school rules.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[I]t is important that a district court resist the understandable temptation to engage in post hoc reasoning by concluding that, because a plaintiff did not ultimately prevail, his action must have been unreasonable or without foundation. This kind of hindsight logic could discourage all but the most airtight claims, for seldom can a prospective plaintiff be sure of ultimate success.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[i]t is beyond peradventure that school children do not shed their constitutional rights at the school house gate. It is well recognized that school officials are subject to constitutional restraints as state officials. School officials, employed and paid by the state and supervising children, are agents of the government and are constrained by the Fourth Amendment.”
    2 later decisions 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.