Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 92 F.3d 934 - Osolinski v. Kane

Osolinski v. Kane’s Empirical Analysis

92 F.3d 934 · 1996

Citation profile

56
cited by 56 later decisions
March 2021
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 7 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently March 2021 · most notably Donnell Jeffers v. James Gomez Director California Department of Corrections (2001), Liston v. County of Riverside (1997)

22 federal appellate · 7 district ·

2401996200020102020decided

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 · Farmer v. Brennan · Wilson v. Seiter

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

  1. “A public official is not entitled to qualified immunity when the contours of the allegedly violated right were sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he [was] doing violate[d] that right.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Because the issue appealed from here concerns not which facts the parties may be able to prove but whether certain given facts show a violation of clearly established law, we conclude that we have jurisdiction.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[f]or the purpose of this threshold qualified immunity analysis, we need not reach the question whether the facts alleged show that appellants acted with deliberate indifference to inmate safety.”
    2 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.