Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 821 F.2d 913 - Connie Robison v. Susan R. Via and Harold Harrison

Connie Robison v. Susan R. Via and Harold Harrison’s Empirical Analysis

821 F.2d 913 · 1987

Citation profile

573
cited by 573 later decisions
10
states following
April 2025
most recently cited

164 federal appellate · 45 district · 15 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 573 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Lennon v. Miller (1995), Act Up!/Portland v. Bagley (1992)

164 federal appellate · 45 district · 15 state decisions — followed in 10 states

279019871990200020102020decided

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 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Conley v. Gibson · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs

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

  1. ““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.”
    28 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “even if the interest asserted by the plaintiff was clearly of a type generally protected by federal law, the defendant is entitled to immunity as a matter of law if it was not clear at the time of the acts at issue that an exception did not permit those acts.”
    15 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “it was objectively reasonable for [the officer] to believe that his acts did not violate [plaintiff's] rights.”
    15 later decisions 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.