Britton v. Maloney’s Empirical Analysis
196 F.3d 24 · 1999
Citation profile
37 federal appellate · 29 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently May 2019 · most notably Castellano v. Fragozo (2003), Nieves v. McSweeney (2001)
37 federal appellate · 29 district ·
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 Terry v. Ohio · United States v. Olano · Carey v. Piphus · United States v. Place · Albright v. Oliver
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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . .”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[The plaintiff] merely received a summons in the mail. He was never arrested on the charges at issue. Nothing in the record indicates that he had to post a bond or to limit his travel before the ultimate hearing in which those charges were dismissed for want of prosecution. Although [the plaintiff] contended] that the summons alone constituted a seizure because it threatened him with arrest if he failed to appear ... [i]n our view, the Supreme Court’s Fourth Amendment jurisprudence belies [the plaintiffs] claim that he was seized. The use of force is certainly not required to effect a seizure. A mere “show of authority” can suffice. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 , 19 n. 16, 88 S.Ct. 1868 , 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968). But Terry cannot be read to mean that the issuance of a summons (any more than a testimonial subpoena or a call to jury duty) would constitute a seizure simply because it threatens a citizen with the possibility of confinement if he fails to appear in court.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“that the type of conduct which constitutes a malicious prosecution under state law can sometimes constitute a violation of the Fourth Amendment as well.”
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.