Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 862 F.2d 1471 - Parker v. Williams

Parker v. Williams’s Empirical Analysis

862 F.2d 1471 · 1989

Citation profile

148
cited by 148 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
3
states following
February 2024
most recently cited

74 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 148 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently February 2024 · most notably McMillian v. Monroe County (1997), Hill v. Dekalb Regional Youth Detention Center (1994)

74 federal appellate · 3 district · 6 state decisions

105019891990200020102020decided

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)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Anderson v. Creighton

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

  1. “[t]he pivotal point is whether [Sheriff Morgan] was exercising county power with final authority”
    9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. ““[a] sheriff is not an employee of a county for purposes of imposing liability on the county under a theory of respondeat superior. A sheriff is an executive officer of the State of Alabama, who is immune from suit under Article I, § 14, Alabama Constitution of 1901, in the execution of the duties of his office, except for actions brought (1) to compel him to perform his duties, (2) to compel him to perform ministerial acts, (3) to enjoin him from enforcing unconstitutional laws, (4) to enjoin him from acting in bad faith, fraudulently, beyond his authority, or under mistaken interpretation of the law, or (5) to seek construction of a statute under the Declaratory Judgment Act if he is a necessary party for the construction of the statute.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[P]rocedural due process is an absolute right .... Although the result in this case may work a hardship on [a party] with no change in the ultimate result, every party must have the opportunity to participate in the processes which may affect his or her rights in a significant manner.”
    2 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.