Eades v. Sterlinske’s Empirical Analysis
810 F.2d 723 · 1987
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 35 later decisions — most recently June 2013 · most notably Kincaid v. Vail (1992), John v. Barron (1990)
13 federal appellate · 2 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Pierson v. Ray · O'Shea v. Littleton · Stump v. Sparkman · Dennis v. Sparks · Commodity Futures Trading Commission v. Weintraub
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 35 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In Lowe we said that a court clerk enjoys absolute immunity where he is performing non-routine, discretionary acts akin to those performed by judges. There we said that the clerk of the court was not entitled to quasi-judicial immunity for allegedly concealing the entry of an order. The duty to type and send notice after entry of judgment, the facts in Lowe , is a nondiscretionary ministerial task. Here, defendants Ewald and Huff prepared and filed a false certificate summarizing an instruction conference that allegedly was never held, and altered the docket to reflect that falsity. In so doing, defendants Huff and Ewald breached their duties, and in that process exercised discretion. As such, their duties had an integral relationship with the judicial process and are cloaked by the traditional doctrine of judicial immunity. Id. p. 726.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“First, a judge must be free to make decisions without fear of personal consequences. Second, because litigation necessarily involves controversy and competing interests, loosing parties may be quick to ascribe malevolent motives to a judge. Third, a qualified “good faith” immunity would be virtually worthless because of the ease of alleging bad faith. Fourth, the prospect of a defending civil damage actions would force judges to employ otherwise unnecessary meticulous recordkeep- ing and would render judges less inclined to rule forthrightly. Finally, other safeguards, such as appeal and impeachment reduce the need for private rights of action for damages against judges.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage“judicial immunity affords less protection than legislative immunity. ...”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.