Murphy v. Lynn’s Empirical Analysis
118 F.3d 938 · 1997
Citation profile
77 federal appellate · 19 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 264 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Misty Kingsland v. City of Miami (2004), Gregory v. City of Louisville (2006)
77 federal appellate · 19 district · 5 state decisions
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. § 3142 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 18 U.S.C. § 3146 (Bail Reform Act of 1984) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Hensley v. Eckerhart · Estelle v. Gamble · Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co. · Parratt v. Taylor · Monroe v. Pape
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 264 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] defendant incarcerated until trial no doubt suffers greater burdens [than one released]. That difference, however, should not lead to the conclusion that a defendant released pretrial is not still "seized" in the constitutionally relevant sense. Such a defendant is scarcely at liberty; he remains apprehended, arrested in his movements, indeed "seized" for trial, so long as he is bound to appear in court and answer the state's charges. He is equally bound to appear, and is hence "seized" for trial, when the state employs the less strong-arm means of a summons in lieu of arrest to secure his presence in court.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“(1) the initiation or continuation of a criminal proceeding against plaintiff; (2) termination of the proceeding in plaintiff's favor; (3) lack of probable cause for commencing the proceeding; and (4) actual malice as a motivation for defendant's actions.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[I]n order to prevail on [a malicious prosecution] claim under § 1983, the plaintiff must show a violation of his rights under the Fourth Amendment”
4 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.