Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 751 F.2d 1472 - Elliott v. Perez

Elliott v. Perez’s Empirical Analysis

751 F.2d 1472 · 1985

Citation profile

324
cited by 324 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
9
states following
January 2023
most recently cited

175 federal appellate · 5 district · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 324 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2023 · most notably Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit (1993), Cinel v. Connick (1994)

175 federal appellate · 5 district · 15 state decisions

163019851990200020102020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 2072 · 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Imbler v. Pachtman · Pierson v. Ray

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

  1. “detailed facts supporting the contention that the plea of immunity cannot be sustained.”
    26 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “'that the plaintiff's complaints state with factual detail and particularity the basis for the claim.'”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “allowing broadly worded complaints ... which leaves to traditional pretrial depositions, interrogatories, and requests for admission the development of the real facts underlying the claim, effectively eviscerates important functions and protections of official immunity.”
    5 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.