Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 241 F.3d 69 - Gabriel Eduardo Rosa Leonor Guzm N-Mieses v. Alicia Ford

Gabriel Eduardo Rosa Leonor Guzm N-Mieses v. Alicia Ford’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

56
cited by 56 later decisions
1
states following
July 2023
most recently cited

47 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 56 later decisions — most recently July 2023 · most notably Nelson v. Salem State College (2006), 360 F. Supp. 2d 326 - Cruz-Baez v. Negron-Irizarry (2005)

47 district · 1 state decisions

310200020102020decided

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 Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Illinois v. Gates · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Graham v. Connor · Malley v. Briggs

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

  1. “whether an objectively reasonable officer, performing discretionary functions, would have understood that his or her conduct violated that clearly established constitutional right.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “manufacture a dispute of fact by contradicting ... earlier sworn testimony.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “that defendants acted with malice and without probable cause, defined as ‘a suspicion founded' upon circumstances sufficiently strong to warrant a reasonable man in the belief that the charge is true.’ ” Abreu-Guzman v. Ford, 241 F.3d 69 (1st Cir.2001) (citing Lora-Rivera v. Drug Enforcement Admin. Dep’t of Justice, 800 F.Supp. 1049, 1051-52 (D.P.R.1992)). To establish the elements of such a claim, a plaintiff must prove that:”
    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.