Murphy v. Morris’s Empirical Analysis
849 F.2d 1101 · 1988
Citation profile
17 federal appellate · 3 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently August 2019 · most notably Whisman v. Rinehart (1997), Mendenhall v. Goldsmith (1995)
17 federal appellate · 3 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. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Rakas v. Illinois · 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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“We note, however, that this cloak of immunity is limited to the attorney’s performance of regular advocacy functions, and like the immunity afforded prosecutors, does not extend to intentional misconduct accomplished outside of the scope of the attorney’s function as an advocate for the state. See Imbler, 424 U.S. at 429 , 96 S.Ct. at 994 ; Tower v. Glover, 467 U.S. 914, 923 , 104 S.Ct. 2820, 2826 , 81 L.Ed.2d 758 (1984) (state public defenders are not afforded absolute immunity for intentional misconduct by virtue of alleged conspiratorial action which deprives their clients of federal rights). The immunity envisioned by the common law, and discussed by the Supreme Court, attaches only to those activities within counsel’s normal duties as an advocate for his or her client. When an attorney goes beyond those boundaries and commits an act of intentional misconduct, the protections of absolute immunity no longer apply. Tower, 467 U.S. at 921 , 104 S.Ct. at 2825 . See Williams v. Hartje, 827 F.2d 1203, 1208-10 (8th Cir. 1987) (The advocacy function entails preparatory and other activity outside of the courtroom undertaken “within the role of advocate.” In drawing the line between absolutely immune and other activities, the important consideration is not whether the act was one which could be done only by an advocate but whether an act is closely related to the role of the advocate.)”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“The introduction of evidence in a judicial proceeding constitutes a normal and regular advocacy function....”
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.