Davidson v. O'Lone’s Empirical Analysis
752 F.2d 817 · 1984
Citation profile
54 federal appellate · 19 district · 8 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 135 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Davidson v. Cannon (1986), Williams v. Borough of West Chester (1989)
54 federal appellate · 19 district · 8 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996) · 18 U.S.C. § 242 · 28 U.S.C. § 1257 · 28 U.S.C. § 1292 · 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Scheuer v. Rhodes
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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]e thus reaffirm that actions may be brought in federal court under § 1983 when there has been infringement of a liberty interest by intentional conduct, gross negligence or reckless indifference, or an established state procedure.” This statement, however, was not joined in by a majority of the court. Id. at n. 8. In fact, as discussed, the court in Sourbeer acknowledged this statement, but recognized that,”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“even when the assault has been committed by another prisoner, if there was intentional conduct, deliberate or reckless indifference to the prisoner's safety, or callous disregard on the part of prison officials.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Were an absolute grant of immunity, precluding state tort suits, sufficient to establish a right to a federal remedy, a pedestrian negligently struck by a police car racing to apprehend a criminal, would be entitled to maintain a 1983 action in federal court if a state.immunity statute shielded police from liability for negligent acts occurring in the course of duty. Yet, if the enactment of an immunity statute by a state is deemed to result in a federal remedy by default, not only would the state’s legitimate interest in fashioning rules of tort law be curtailed, but also state law would then determine the content of 1983 action in federal court. This reasoning “would make the Fourteenth Amendment a font of tort law to be superimposed upon whatever systems may already be administered by the States.” Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693, 701 , 96 S.Ct. 1155, 1160 , 47 L.Ed.2d 405 (1976). I suggest that to allow a federal constitutional remedy in the circumstances presented here is not only contrary to the purposes of section 1983 but necessarily trivializes 1983 actions.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.