Alan D. Whatley v. Robert E. Philo’s Empirical Analysis
817 F.2d 19 · 1987
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 7 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 39 later decisions — most recently February 2017 · most notably Salas v. Carpenter (1992), Torres v. Superintendent of the Police of Puerto Rico (1990)
20 federal appellate · 7 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 Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Northern Pipeline Construction Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co. · United States v. Caceres · Ohio State Board of Education v. Reed · Fahey v. Mallonee
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 39 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although we sometimes short-handedly refer to only one party’s burden, the law is that both bear a burden. The defendant official must initially plead his good faith and establish that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority. Once the defendant has done so, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to rebut this defense by establishing that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law. The Fifth Circuit does not require that an official demonstrate that he did not violate clearly established federal rights; our precedent places that burden upon plaintiffs.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[Ljitigiousness which gives rise to a common law tort action for misuse of legal procedure may be so egregious as to constitute a violation of Section 1983 as well, if the tort-feasor, under color of state law, subjects the tort-victim to a deprivation of Constitutional dimension. It follows, however, that conduct which merely engenders common law tort liability, without infringing on constitutionality protected interests, is not a sufficient basis to support a cause of action under Section 1983. Section 1983 simply does not provide a remedy for mere common law torts, even though committed under color of state law. More specifically the common law tort of misuse of legal procedure, without more, does not rise to the level of constitutional wrong remedied by Section 1983.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Sisk v. Levings“[a]t most, Beker supports the proposition that, to be actionable under Sec. 1983, the misuse of legal process must be 'egregious' "); Easton v. Sundram, 947 F.2d 1011 , 1017 (2d Cir.1991) (holding that "[t]he misuse of the legal process must be so egregious as to work a deprivation of a constitutional dimension”
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.