Burns v. Loranger’s Empirical Analysis
907 F.2d 233 · 1990
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 32 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 87 later decisions — most recently October 2022 · most notably Rivera v. United States (1991), Swain v. Spinney (1997)
33 federal appellate · 32 district · 3 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 636 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Illinois v. Gates · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Anderson v. Creighton · Brinegar 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 87 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable [police officer] would have known.”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A]ppellate assessment of a qualified immunity claim is apportioned into two analytic components. First, if the right asserted by the plaintiff was “clearly established” at the time of its alleged violation, we are required to assume that the right was recognized by the defendant official, see Harlow [v. Fitzgerald], 457 U.S. [800,] 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 [(1982)]; Rodriguez v. Comas, 888 F.2d 899 , 901 (1st Cir.1989); second, we will deny the immunity claim if a reasonable official situated in the same circumstances should have understood that the challenged conduct violated that established right, see Anderson [v. Creighton], 483 U.S. [635,] 640-41, 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 [(1987)]; Rodriguez, 888 F.2d at 901 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“First if the right asserted by the (Appellant] was "clearly established” at the time of its alleged violation, we are required to assume that the right was recognized by the [Appel-lee] official ...; second, we will deny the immunity claim if a reasonable official situated in the same circumstances should have understood that the challenged conduct violated that established right.”
4 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.