Halperin v. Kissinger’s Empirical Analysis
807 F.2d 180 · 1986
Citation profile
53 federal appellate · 13 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 124 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably Connie Robison v. Susan R. Via and Harold Harrison (1987), Lennon v. Miller (1995)
53 federal appellate · 13 district · 2 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.
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 2511 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 18 U.S.C. § 2520 (Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986) · 28 U.S.C. § 42
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Katz v. United States · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Mitchell v. Forsyth · United States v. Nixon
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 124 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““no reasonable jury, looking at the evidence in the light most favorable to, and drawing all inferences most favorable to, the plaintiffs, could conclude that it was objectively unreasonable for the defendant! ]” to believe that he was acting in a fashion that did not clearly violate an established federally protected right.”
20 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Lee v. Sandberg · Hartline v. Gallo“alter the burden that Rule 56(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure places on the movant to demonstrate, as a condition of summary judgment, that the objective inquiry raises ‘no genuine issue as to any material fact....’ ” Martin v. Malhoyt, 830 F.2d 237, 256 (D.C.Cir.1987), reh. denied, 833 F.2d 1049 (D.C.Cir.1987), quoting Halperin v. Kissinger, 807 F.2d 180, 188-89 (D.C.Cir.1986); see also Briggs v. Goodwin, 698 F.2d 486 , 492 n. 2 (D.C.Cir.1983) (the”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“even assuming that a court may under certain circumstances depart from the law of the case because of an intervening decision by a different panel of the same court, this case is not one in which to take that step____ [Njone of th[e intervening] cases is on all fours with the case sub judice and none offers sufficiently cogent and overarching analysis of the reasonableness issue to control in this case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.