Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 163 F.3d 169 - Torres v. McLaughlin

Torres v. McLaughlin’s Empirical Analysis

163 F.3d 169 · 1998

Citation profile

91
cited by 91 later decisions
1
states following
January 2019
most recently cited

24 federal appellate · 14 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 91 later decisions — most recently January 2019 · most notably Podobnik v. United States Postal Service (2005), Ridgewood Board of Education v. N.E. (1999)

24 federal appellate · 14 district · 1 state decisions

630199820002010decided

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

Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Graham v. Connor

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

  1. “Albright stands for the broader proposition that a section 1983 [malicious prosecution] claim may be based on a constitutional provision other than the Fourth Amendment.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[T]he limits of Fourth Amendment protection relate to the boundary between arrest and pretrial detention.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “Albright implies that prosecution without probable cause is not, in and of itself, a constitutional tort. Instead, the constitutional violation is the deprivation of liberty accompanying the prosecution. Thus, ... a plaintiff asserting a malicious prosecution claim must show some deprivation of liberty consistent with the concept of “seizure” [under the Fourth Amendment].”
    2 later decisions 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.