Betty Thompson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 1 district · 5 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 172 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “"Clearly established" means that the "contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right." Anderson, 107 S.Ct. at 3039 . The defendant's acts are held to be objectively reasonable unless all reasonable officials in the defendant's circumstances would have then known that the defendant's conduct violated the United States Constitution or the federal statute as alleged by the plaintiff. Id. at 3040; Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335 , 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986); Pierce, 117 F.3d at 871 . The "defendant's circumstances" includes facts know to the defendant. However, because qualified immunity turns only upon the objective reasonableness of the defendant's acts, a particular defendant's subjective state of mind has no bearing on whether that defendant is entitled to qualified immunity. Anderson, 107 S.Ct. at 3040 ; Pierce, 117 F.3d at 871 n. 5. An official is eligible for qualified immunity even if the official violated another's constitutional rights. Goodson v. City of Corpus Christi, 202 F.3d 730, 736 (5th Cir.2000); Pierce, 117 F.3d at 872 .”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Papin v. Univ. of Miss. Med. Ctr. · Vernon Linicomn v. City of Dallas

2. “The defendant official must initially plead his good faith and establish that he was acting within the scope of his discretionary authority. Once the defendant has done so, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to rebut this defense by establishing that the official’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Jones v. Lopez · Atwood v. Tullos

3. “(1) the sheriff failed to train or supervise the officers involved; (2) there is a causal connection between the alleged failure to supervise or train and the alleged violation of the plaintiff s rights; and (3) the failure to train or supervise constituted deliberate indifference to the plaintiffs constitutional rights.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rojero v. El Paso County · Brown Ex Rel. Estate of Brown v. Bolin