Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 133 F.3d 189 - Tierney ex rel. Newton v. Davidson

Tierney ex rel. Newton v. Davidson’s Empirical Analysis

133 F.3d 189 · 1998

Citation profile

171
cited by 171 later decisions
7
states following
January 2025
most recently cited

50 federal appellate · 16 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 171 later decisions — most recently January 2025 · most notably Savino v. City of New York (2003), Curley v. Klem (2002)

50 federal appellate · 16 district · 12 state decisions

8601998200020102020decided

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

Relies on Graham v. Connor · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Payton v. New York · Malley v. Briggs · Mincey v. Arizona

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

  1. “Even where the lower court rules that material disputes of fact preclude summary judgment on qualified immunity, we may still exercise interlocutory jurisdiction if the defendant... contends that he is entitled to qualified immunity even under plaintiff's version of the facts.”
    10 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Courts have recognized the combustible nature of domestic disputes, and have accorded great latitude to an officer's belief that warrantless entry was justified by exigent circumstances when the officer had substantial reason to believe that one of the parties to the dispute was in danger.”
    5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) the need for the application of force, (2) the relationship between the need and the amount of force that was used, (3) the extent of the injury inflicted, and (4) whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.”
    3 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.