Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 774 F.2d 716 - Donta v. Hooper

Donta v. Hooper’s Empirical Analysis

774 F.2d 716 · 1985

Citation profile

70
cited by 70 later decisions
3
states following
January 2022
most recently cited

30 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 70 later decisions — most recently January 2022 · most notably 64 Ohio St. 3d 284 - Conley v. Shearer (1992), Criss v. City of Kent (1988)

30 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 state decisions

33019851990200020102020decided

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))

Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Carroll v. United States · Franks v. Delaware · Brinegar v. United States · Coolidge v. New Hampshire

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

  1. “Qualified immunity involves a three-step inquiry. First, we determine whether, based upon the applicable law, the facts viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs show that a constitutional violation has occurred. Second, we consider whether the violation involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. Third, we determine whether the plaintiff has offered sufficient evidence “to indicate that what the official allegedly did was objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established constitutional rights.””
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The trial judge is to apply this purely objective test as a matter of law before discovery occurs. If the law which the defendant is alleged to have violated is clearly established, then the qualified immunity defense should fail and discovery should proceed. If the law is not clearly established, the defendant is immune.”
    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.