Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 236 F.3d 552 - Valerie Streit Diego Santillana Michael Roerich v. County of Los Angeles Jerry Harper Michael Graham Barry King Bob Pash Daniel Burt Eddie Shields

Valerie Streit Diego Santillana Michael Roerich v. County of Los Angeles Jerry Harper Michael Graham Barry King Bob Pash Daniel Burt Eddie Shields’s Empirical Analysis

236 F.3d 552 · 2001

Citation profile

69
cited by 69 later decisions
1
states following
December 2023
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 69 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably 32 Cal. 4th 820 - Venegas v. County of Los Angeles (2004), Manders v. Lee (2003)

25 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions

420200120102020decided

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 Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp. · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Edelman v. Jordan · Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman

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

  1. “Municipal police departments ... can be sued in federal court for alleged civil rights violations.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “by those whose edicts or acts . . . may fairly be said to represent official policy,”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the LASD [Sheriffs Department] conducts a check of ... a computerized law enforcement database[ ] to confirm that the prisoner is- not wanted by any other law enforcement agency. It is the LASD’s policy, however, to run the ... check only after all wants and holds that arrive on the day a prisoner is scheduled for release are-inputted into the database. Due to the high volume of wants and holds received each day, the inputting process can, and often does, take between one to two days to complete. It is only after the inputting process is complete and the computer check run, that the LASD begins the administrative steps toward a prisoner’s release. Although no longer required to serve time, ■these prisoners must remain in jail during the inputting period, extending their incarceration beyond their release date.”
    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.