Kain v. Nesbitt’s Empirical Analysis
156 F.3d 669 · 1998
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 32 later decisions — most recently May 2015 · most notably Kostrzewa v. City of Troy (2001), Bertha Boyd v. Matthew Baeppler (2000)
10 federal appellate · 2 district · 4 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
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Siegert v. Gilley · Johnson v. Jones · Crawford-El v. Britton
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 32 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“If ... the excessive force consisted of handcuffing her in connection with an arrest, the claim would fail because it would be apparent on its face that no constitutional violation had been pleaded. In such an instance the claim would be subject to dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or summary judgment. It would not be necessary to make a qualified immunity analysis. If, however, the plaintiff were to amend and state the excessive force consisted of the defendant intentionally and maliciously handcuffing her so tightly that she lost circulation in both her wrists and suffered physical injury, then the qualified immunity analysis would have to be made.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“When making a qualified immunity analysis, it is important to remember that the defendant is, in essence, saying: 'If the plaintiff's version is credited, what I did, judged today, arguendo would be wrongful, but at the time I acted, no reasonable officer would have known he was acting wrongfully.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[the heightened pleading requirement enunciated in Veney ] is not to be confused with a heightened proof requirement which was condemned by the Supreme Court in Crawford-El ....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Goad v. Mitchell
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.