Hart v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 12 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 18 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Summary judgment is authorized "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." We will affirm only when there are no genuine issues of material fact and the legal questions have been correctly decided. All reasonable inferences drawn from the facts must be viewed in favor of the non-moving party. The burden is on the moving party to clearly show an absence of any genuine issue of material fact and an entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Swedlund v. Foster · Liffengren v. Bendt

2. “In the present case, to overcome the first element of the Horne test, Hart must "allege the violation of a clearly established constitutional or statutory right. " See Comfort v. Town of Pittsfield, 924 F.Supp. 1219, 1227 (D.Maine 1996) (emphasis added).... In discussing application of qualified immunity, the Maine District Court stated, [t]he Supreme Court has extended qualified immunity generously, imposing a heavy burden on plaintiffs to establish liability. [citation omitted.] This policy is justified on a variety of grounds, not least of which is a fear that "personal monetary liability and harassing litigation will unduly inhibit officials in the discharge of their duties." * * * The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals found [in ruling on a § 1983 claim] that Reeve had no claim and held, [Reeve] has failed to allege a constitutional violation.... As we stated in Gregory v. City of Rogers, 974 F.2d 1006, 1009 (8th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, [ 507 U.S. 914 ], 113 S.Ct. 1265 , 122 L.Ed.2d 661 (1993), "Many harms, though caused by a state actor, do not fall within the scope of section 1983, for section 1983 does not turn the Fourteenth Amendment into a font of tort law that supersedes the tort systems already available under individual state laws."”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Swedlund v. Foster

3. “The trial court measured Miller's actions against a standard of objective reasonableness. On this basis, the court found that a reasonable officer in Miller's position would have believed his actions were lawful and not in violation of Hart's constitutional rights. However, it failed to focus on whether a question of fact exists as to the meaning of Miller's question to Hart and the claims of prior misconduct as interpreting the meaning of his ambiguous statement. "[I]n the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent." Anderson, 483 U.S. at 640, 107 S.Ct. at 3039, 97 L.Ed.2d at 531 . While Miller could properly question a suspect when circumstances reasonably indicate it is necessary, (see Spenner, 1998 SD 56, at 29 , 580 N.W.2d at 613 ), he was not at liberty to offer immunity from prosecution in exchange for sexual favors. We reverse on this issue and remand for a trial where the jury will judge the credibility of the witnesses as to what really occurred and determine whether Miller's conduct was for a proper reason or not.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Swedlund v. Foster