Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 168 F.3d 856 - Evans v. Ball

Evans v. Ball’s Empirical Analysis

168 F.3d 856 · 1999

Citation profile

94
cited by 94 later decisions
December 2024
most recently cited

38 federal appellate · 5 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably Misty Kingsland v. City of Miami (2004), Bennett v. City of Eastpointe (2005)

38 federal appellate · 5 district ·

6201999200020102020decided

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 · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics

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

  1. “is better understood as two separate inquiries: whether the allegedly violated constitutional right[ ] [was] clearly established at the time of the incident; and if so, whether the conduct of the defendant[ ] [official] was objectively unreasonable in light of that then clearly established law.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[M]alicious prosecution may be a constitutional violation, but only if all of its common law elements are established....”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “was fingerprinted, photographed, forced to sign a personal recognizance bond, and required to report regularly to pretrial services, to obtain permission before leaving the state, and to provide federal officers with financial and identifying information”
    2 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.