Reed v. State of New Mexico’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

16 district · 4 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 38 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “A court required to rule upon the qualified immunity issue must consider, then, this threshold question: Taken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right? This must be the initial inquiry.... In the course of determining whether a constitutional right was violated on the premise alleged, a court might find it necessary to set forth principles which will become the basis for a holding that a right is clearly established. This is the process for the law’s elaboration from case to case, and it is one reason for our insisting upon turning to the existence or nonexistence of a constitutional right as the first inquiry. The law might be deprived of this explanation were a court simply to skip ahead to the question whether the law clearly established that the officer’s conduct was unlawful in the circumstances of the case.”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 678 F. Supp. 2d 1093 - Smith v. Kenny · 760 F. Supp. 2d 1068 - Mata v. Anderson

2. “While we do not endorse the BCDC Appellees’ failure to pursue the matter — a simple phone call might have expedited resolution of Mr. Reed’s case— we conclude that the BCDC Appellees were not required by either the Constitution or statute to investigate independently Mr. Reed’s claim that he should be released within this time frame. See Thompson v. Duke, 882 F.2d 1180, 1186 (7th Cir.1989) (“On the basis of [Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137 , 99 S.Ct. 2689 , 61 L.Ed.2d 433 (1979) ], Hardiman and Patrick, as mere jailers, only had a duty to determine the facial validity of the warrant under which [defendant] was held; they had no independent duty to investigate [defendant’s] claims of innocence.”); see also Baker, 443 U.S. at 145 ^6, 99 S.Ct. 2689 (1979) (“[W]e do not think a sheriff executing an arrest warrant is required by the Constitution to investigate independently every claim of innocence, whether the claim is based on mistaken identity or a defense such as lack of requisite intent. Nor is the official charged with maintaining custody of the accused named in the warrant required by the Constitution to perform an error-free investigation of such a claim.”).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 3 F. Supp. 3d 936 - Chavez v. County of Bernalillo

3. “Every public officer who has power to order the imprisonment of any person for violation of law shall, on making such order, transmit to the sheriff, jail administrator or independent contractor of his respective county a true copy of the order so that the person imprisoned may be considered under his custody until expiration of the commitment or until further steps, as provided by law, are taken to obtain the prisoner’s liberty, of which he shall, in due time, notify the sheriff, jail administrator or independent contractor in writing.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 3 F. Supp. 3d 936 - Chavez v. County of Bernalillo