Landstrom v. Illinois Department of Children & Family Services’s Empirical Analysis
892 F.2d 670 · 1990
Citation profile
56 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 135 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Brokaw v. Mercer County (2000), Willie Jacobs and Linda Siller v. City of Chicago (2000)
56 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 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
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Anderson v. Creighton · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Connick v. Myers
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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Once the defendant’s actions are defined or characterized according to the specific facts of the case this characterization is compared to the body of law existing at the time of the alleged violation to determine if constitutional, statutory, or case law shows that the now specifically defined actions violated the clearly established law.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Crue v. Aiken · Fittanto v. Klein“sufficiently particularized to put [Haskins] on notice that [his] conduct probably is unlawful.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage“'a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.' " McDonald v. Haskins, 966 F.2d 292, 293 (7th Cir.1992) (quoting Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640, 107 S.Ct. at 3039). "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.”
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.