Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 105 F.3d 291 - Donovan v. Thames

Donovan v. Thames’s Empirical Analysis

105 F.3d 291 · 1997

Citation profile

72
cited by 72 later decisions
2
states following
November 2021
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 72 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably Stemler v. City of Florence (1997), DLX, Inc. v. Kentucky (2004)

26 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

4701997200020102020decided

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. § 1738 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Brinegar v. United States · Heck v. Humphrey · Allen v. McCurry · Beck v. State of Ohio · Railroad Commission v. Pullman Co.

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

  1. “It is clearly established that an arrest without probable cause violates the Fourth Amendment.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “the facts and circumstances within [the officer's] knowledge and of which [the officer] had reasonably trustworthy information were sufficient to warrant a prudent man in believing that the [suspect] had committed or was committing an offense.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “The general rule is that a judgment in a former action operates as an estoppel only as to matters which were necessarily involved and determined in the former action, and is not conclusive as to matters which were immaterial or unessential to the determination of the prior action or which were not necessary to uphold the judgment.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.