Williams v. Hepting’s Empirical Analysis
844 F.2d 138 · 1988
Citation profile
28 federal appellate · 11 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 80 later decisions — most recently August 2016 · most notably Kulwicki v. Dawson (1992), White v. Frank (1988)
28 federal appellate · 11 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Conley v. Gibson · Younger v. Harris · Wolff v. McDonnell · Imbler v. Pachtman · Pierson v. Ray
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 80 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[O]ur cases clearly indicate that immunity analysis rests on functional categories, not on the status of the defendant. A police officer on the witness stand performs the same functions as any other witness; he is subject to compulsory process, takes an oath, responds to questions on direct examination and cross-examination, and may be prosecuted subsequently for perjury.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'district court, when abstaining from adjudicating a claim for injunctive relief, should stay and not dismiss accompanying claims for damages and attorney fees when such relief is not available from the ongoing state proceedings'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Witnesses at trial are afforded absolute immunity to encourage complete disclosure in judicial proceedings. The thought is that witnesses should be encouraged to tell all they know without fearing reprisal, because the tools of the judicial process — rules of evidence, cross-examination, the fact-finder, and the penalty of perjury — will be able to uncover the truth. The interest in complete disclosure is no less diminished at the pretrial stage, at a preliminary hearing, or at a suppression hearing. The tools of the judicial process are no less present to ferret out the truth at these times. In addition, the criminal defendant enjoys the immediate right at all stages of the judicial process to submit his or her own evidence and to cross-examine the witnesses.”
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.