Veilleux v. Perschau’s Empirical Analysis
101 F.3d 1 · 1996
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 15 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 28 later decisions — most recently March 2014 · most notably Swain v. Spinney (1997), Berthiaume v. Caron (1998)
9 federal appellate · 15 district ·
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 18 U.S.C. § 922 (Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Anderson v. Creighton · Malley v. Briggs · Hunter v. Bryant · New York v. Quarles · Elder Holloway et al
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 28 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is enough to resolve this case that the circumstances are unique and the volun-tariness issue is very close. Although the right against self-incrimination is itself clearly established, Perschau is nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity ‘[so long as his] decision was reasonable, even if mistaken.’ Indeed, the Supreme Court has said that the qualified immunity defense was designed to ‘provid[e] ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.’ Under an objective reasonableness standard, Perschau could reasonably believe that he was not violating Veilleux’ rights but offering him an attractive bargain for a legitimate purpose, namely, to protect the public against the chance that the gun would be found by a child (or perhaps by a criminal). It makes no difference that a court might later conclude that the officer was mistaken; one of the cardinal purposes of immunity is to offer the police ‘a fairly wide zone of protection in close cases.’”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“entitled to qualified immunity [so long as] their decision was reasonable, even if mistaken.”
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.