Bonds v. Cw Cox’s Empirical Analysis
20 F.3d 697 · 1994
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently September 2024 · most notably Shamaeizadeh v. Cunigan (2003), Graham v. County of Washtenaw (2004)
20 federal appellate · 2 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1746 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Payton v. New York · Rakas v. Illinois · United States v. Jacobsen · United States v. Salvucci
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 51 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“... A “seizure” of property occurs when “there is some meaningful interference with an individual’s possessory interests in that property.” Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 60 , 113 S.Ct. 538, 543 , 121 L.Ed.2d 450 (1992) (quoting United States v. Jacobsen, 466 U.S. 109, 113 , 104 S.Ct. 1652, 1656 , 80 L.Ed.2d 85 (1984)). The damage to Bonds’ house, which included broken doors, mutilated vinyl siding, a cracked commode, holes in walls, broken dishes, and trampled personal belongings, clearly rises to the level of a “meaningful interference” with her possessory interests. See Jacobsen, 466 U.S. at 124-25 , 104 S.Ct. at 1662 (destruction of a quantity of cocaine during testing constituted a seizure, because test affected defendant’s possessory interests). The Fourth Amendment protects against a seizure of property even if it occurs in a context in which privacy or liberty interests are not implicated. Soldal, 506 U.S. at 64 , 113 S.Ct. at 545 . Thus, our finding that Bonds had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the house at 4174 Dunn Avenue does not affect our conclusion that Bonds has standing to challenge the seizure of her property. Although we have found that Bonds has standing to assert her property damage claim, we must still address the question of whether the Fourth Amendment is an appropriate vehicle for asserting that claim. In Miller v. Kunze, 1988 WL 138916, , 1988 U.S.App. LEXIS 17644, (6th Cir. Dec.28, 1988) (per curiam), this Court stated: Even if we were”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It is indeed difficult, under these circumstances, to determine how to consider the evidence in the light most favorable to [the non-moving party] when her own allegations regarding the crucial issues of fact are in direct conflict. We do not believe that the standard of review for summary judgment ... requires us to ignore a party’s own conflicting statements in construing the facts to her best advantage.”
1 later decision 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.