Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 889 F.2d 701 - Eugene v. Karman

Eugene v. Karman’s Empirical Analysis

889 F.2d 701 · 1989

Citation profile

55
cited by 55 later decisions
2
states following
February 2009
most recently cited

27 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 55 later decisions — most recently February 2009 · most notably Meador v. Cabinet for Human Resources (1990), Gazette v. City of Pontiac (1994)

27 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions

440198919902000decided

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 · Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth · Anderson v. Creighton · Estelle v. Gamble · Mitchell v. Forsyth

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

  1. “In deciding whether the law was clearly established, we look to federal constitutional, statutory or case law existing at the time____ When the focus is on decisional law, we examine initially, and most importantly, the decisions of the Supreme Court and the courts of this circuit____ If case law from these sources is unavailable, we may also look for guidance to the cases from other circuits____ We recognize, however, that a single recent case from the court of appeals of another circuit is hardly sufficient to make the law “clearly established” in this circuit.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. This is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful; but it is to say that in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “We may not impose personal liability upon state social workers because they failed to anticipate that principles of law developed in other distinct contexts would be applied to them, for to do so would be contrary to the admonition in Anderson v. Creighton, 107 S.Ct. at 3039 , that we should not allow plaintiffs to convert “the rule of qualified immunity into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract rights.””
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.