Hensley v. Suttles’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “The Plaintiffs asserts [sic] that the Defendants’ alleged harmful conduct— Price and Beasley’s unreasonable use of deadly force to ‘seize’ the decedent—was conduct clearly proscribed by the Constitution, While a police officer’s interaction with a person may or may not ultimately lead to the person’s seizure in a constitutional sense, “there can be no question that apprehension by the use of deadly force is a seizure subject to the reasonableness requirement of the Fourth Amendment.” Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1 , 7 [ 105 S.Ct. 1694 , 85 L.Ed.2d 1 ] (1985). Therefore, if the, forecast of evidence would support a jury finding that the deputies’ use of deadly force was unreasonable, then both prongs of the pertinent test have been met.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hensley ex rel. North Carolina v. Price

2. “[T]he legal question. is whether [the] [plaintiffs’ forecast of evidence can give rise to a reasonable inference that the [Djeputies objectively lacked probable cause to believe that [Hensley] posed a threat of serious physical harm to them. Taking the evidence in the light most favorable to the [plaintiffs, .... a reasonable jury could conclude that the [Deputies] had no objective basis upon which they could base a decision to use deadly force against [Hensley].”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Hensley ex rel. North Carolina v. Price