Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 876 F.2d 1385 - Lum v. Jensen

Lum v. Jensen’s Empirical Analysis

876 F.2d 1385 · 1989

Citation profile

66
cited by 66 later decisions
4
states following
July 2008
most recently cited

30 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently July 2008 · most notably Portman v. County of Santa Clara (1993), Nicholas v. Pennsylvania State University (2000)

30 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions

480198919902000decided

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 · Anderson v. Creighton · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Wood v. Strickland · Pelaes v. United States

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

  1. “Absent binding precedent, [this Court] look[s] to all available decisional law, including the law of other circuits and district courts, to determine whether the right was clearly established.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “as long as 'their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " Lum, 876 F.2d at 1386 (quoting Harlow, 457 U.S. at 817). 19 To defeat qualified immunity, [Bartholomew] must allege violation of more than an abstract right to due process. He must allege violation of a right that has been "clearly established in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.... [I]n the light of preexisting law the unlawfulness must be apparent.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.”
    3 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.