Chastain v. Sundquist’s Empirical Analysis
833 F.2d 311 · 1987
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently November 2015 · most notably Lunderstadt v. Colafella (1989), National Ass'n of Social Workers v. Harwood (1995)
12 federal appellate · 6 district · 3 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
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Paul v. Davis · Imbler v. Pachtman
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[ijnsofar as [legislative immunity] is construed to reach other matters, they must be an integral part of the deliberative and communicative processes by which [legislators] participate in committee and House proceedings with respect to the consideration and passage or rejection of proposed legislation or with respect to other matters [within the legislature’s constitutional jurisdiction],”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“"[T]he distinctive obligations imposed on legislators require absolute immunity to make law, but privileges extending beyond that threaten the essential obligation to represent the people. By contrast, common law absolute immunity has always extended to those categories of officials who must face daily enforcement decisions. Put another way, the judicially created immunities for judges, prosecutors and executive officials confirm, rather than reverse, common law presumptions.” ( 833 F.2d at 321 .)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Unlike members of the executive or judicial branches, members of Congress have the unique ability to enact legislation. In this capacity, congressional power could be hypothesized to exist to enact legislation immunizing members of Congress from common law torts. ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ ‡ If members of Congress in fact believe they require the protection of official immunity, let them so declare and stand accountable to the people for their action.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
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.