Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 758 F.2d 468 - Lavicky v. Burnett

Lavicky v. Burnett’s Empirical Analysis

758 F.2d 468 · 1985

Citation profile

75
cited by 75 later decisions
4
states following
September 2023
most recently cited

46 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently September 2023 · most notably Melton v. City of Oklahoma City (1989), No. 90-6051 (1991)

46 federal appellate · 10 district · 4 state decisions

31019851990200020102020decided

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. § 1985

Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Chimel v. California · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Parratt v. Taylor · Allen v. McCurry

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

  1. “there was no evidence of malice, wantonness or oppressiveness to justify punitive damages”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[o]fficials cannot be held for punitive damages simply because they did not know the rules of conduct they should follow. Simple ignorance of the applicable legal rules, even arrogant ignorance, does not by itself indicate reckless or callous indifference to federally protected rights.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Whether an individual employee himself is able to foresee a deprivation is simply of no consequence. The controlling inquiry is solely whether the State is in a position to provide for predeprivation process.”
    1 later decision 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.