Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 995 F.2d 132 - Swenson v. Trickey

Swenson v. Trickey’s Empirical Analysis

995 F.2d 132 · 1993

Citation profile

43
cited by 43 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
2
states following
June 2011
most recently cited

20 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 43 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2011 · most notably 123 Wash. 2d 138 - Matter of Personal Restraint of Cashaw (1994), Duffy v. Wolle (1997)

20 federal appellate · 2 district · 7 state decisions

320199320002010decided

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 · Hewitt v. Helms · Hunter v. Bryant · 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 43 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[P]ublic officials are entitled to qualified immunity when their 'conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.'”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “`specific directives to the decisionmaker that if the regulations' substantive predicates are present, a particular outcome must follow'.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “[T]he contours of the right [are] sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what [she] is doing violates that right. 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 preexisting law, the unlawfulness must be apparent.”
    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.