Kenney v. Killian’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

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

1. ““In determining which period of limitation to apply to an action under a particular federal statute, the federal court accepts the state’s interpretation of its own statutes of limitations, but determines for itself the nature of the right conferred by the federal statute. “The California courts have held that an action is based ‘upon a liability created by statute,’ within the meaning of Section 338(1), if the liability would not exist but for statute. Or, conversely, an action is not based ‘upon a liability created by statute’ if the right is one which would exist at common law in the absence of statute. Though broadly stated, the distinction drawn is sufficiently discriminating for the present case. “Section 1983 of the Civil Rights Act clearly creates rights and imposes obligations different from any which would exist at common law in the absence of statute. A given state of facts may of course give rise to a cause of action in common-law tort as well as to a cause of action under Section 1983, but the elements of the two are not the same. The elements of an action under Section 1983 are (1) the denial under color of state law (2) of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. Neither of these elements would be required to make out a cause of action in common-law tort; both might be present without creating common-law tort liability. As Mr. Justice Harlan recently suggested, ‘a deprivation of a constitutional right is significantly different from an”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 88 Cal. App. 3d 706 - Rossiter v. Benoit

2. ““The applicable Michigan statute, Comp.Laws Mich.1948, § 609.13, subd. 3, provides: ‘Actions * * * for false imprisonment, for malicious prosecution * * * shall be brought within 2 years from the time the cause for action accrues, and not afterwards.’ ” 2 Citing Wilson v. Hinman, supra, and Gordon v. Garrson, D.C.E.D.Ill.1948, 77 F.Supp. 477 . “In summary, the court concludes: (1) That the plaintiff’s present action is barred by the Michigan two-year statute of limitations; (2) that the plaintiff’s complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief could be granted against the defendant under the Federal civil rights statutes; and (3) that the defendant is immune from civil liability to the plaintiff under the Federal civil rights statutes.” Kenney v. Killian, supra, 133 F.Supp. at page 580 .”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 193 F. Supp. 727 - Hoffman v. Wair

3. ““In his complaint * * * plaintiff alleges that his arrest on Novem ber 16, 1950, and his detention in the Berrien county jail in temporary (for approximately 40 hours) protective custody was in deprivation of his rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution and Federal laws. Therefore, it is clear that under § 1343 hereinbefore quoted this court has jurisdiction of the present action.” [Parenthetical phrase supplied.]”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 193 F. Supp. 727 - Hoffman v. Wair