Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 890 F.2d 708 - Morales v. Haynes

Morales v. Haynes’s Empirical Analysis

890 F.2d 708 · 1989

Citation profile

14
cited by 14 later decisions
1
states following
April 2004
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 14 later decisions — most recently April 2004

5 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions

100198919902000decided

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 26 U.S.C. § 6103 · 26 U.S.C. § 6331

Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Paul v. Davis · Davis v. Scherer

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

  1. “[In Rutherford,] we remanded the case for a determination of whether the agent's particularly egregious and offensive conduct might have deprived the plaintiffs of a “liberty'' interest and, if so, whether that interest, once identified, was so "clearly established" as to deprive the defendant of his qualified immunity. We did not hold that the alleged conduct violated a protected ‘liberty’ interest, and we certainly did not hold that the defendant lost his qualified immunity by violating a ‘clearly established’ constitutional right.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “did not hold that the alleged conduct violated a protected 'liberty' interest.”
    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.