Arcoren v. Peters’s Empirical Analysis
829 F.2d 671 · 1987
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 36 later decisions — most recently December 2006 · most notably Get Away Club, Inc. v. Coleman (1992), Young II v. Kann (1991)
21 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 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. § 658 · 7 U.S.C. § 1981A
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Mathews v. Eldridge · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Mitchell v. Forsyth
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 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“are held accountable, while officials who reasonably exercise their discretion may do so without fear of being sued. Arcoren v. Peters, 829 F.2d 671 , 673 (8th Cir.1987) (en banc) (citations omitted). When performing a discretionary function, a government official is entitled to qualified immunity from suit if, at the time of his conduct, it was not”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“gambled and lost on the resolution of [an] open question.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“that his actions would violate the plaintiff's constitutional rights. Id. at 673, 676-77. 10 The qualified immunity defense fails when the official acts in a manner that disregards undisputed constitutional guarantees, but an official is not expected to anticipate the law's development or its possible application to a unique situation. Id. at 673. Thus, an official may not be charged with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful unless it has been previously identified as such, and an official does not forfeit immunity because he”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Pulido v. Bennett
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.