Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 926 F.2d 963 - Arnold v. McClain

Arnold v. McClain’s Empirical Analysis

926 F.2d 963 · 1991

Citation profile

48
cited by 48 later decisions
3
states following
February 2018
most recently cited

14 federal appellate · 15 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 48 later decisions — most recently February 2018 · most notably Seamons v. Snow (1996), Pitts v. County of Kern (1998)

14 federal appellate · 15 district · 3 state decisions

300199120002010decided

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 Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs · Kentucky v. Graham

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

  1. “We are free to affirm a district court's dismissal on any grounds for which there is a record sufficient to permit conclusions of law, even grounds not relied upon by the district court.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “As stated by the Supreme Court in Santobello v. New York, 404 U.S. 257, 260 , 92 S.Ct. 495 , 30 L.Ed.2d 427 (1971): “[t]he disposition of criminal charges by agreement between the prosecutor and the accused, sometimes loosely called ‘plea bargaining,’ is an essential component of the administration of justice. Properly administered, it is to be encouraged.” We find the “agreement” between the two parties herein to be sufficiently analogous to a plea bargain to warrant the same deference to the prosecutor’s discretion. Accordingly, we find Defendant is entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity for his actions in securing the resignation of [the plaintiff].”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “In determining whether a prosecutor has lost his absolute immunity by committing a prosecutorial act beyond the scope of his authority, we must interpret his authority broadly.”
    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.