Winters v. Adams’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 federal appellate · 13 district · 14 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 72 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “in order to ensure the safety of the public and/or the individual, regardless of any suspected criminal activity.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Samuelson v. City of New Ulm · Cravener v. Shuster

2. “Although there can be no question that the Fourth Amendment prohibits unreasonable seizures of the person, it is also well established that not every push or shove violates the Fourth Amendment. The applicable test is “whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is reasonable.” In the context of a claim of excessive force, the “reasonableness” inquiry must be an objective one in that the court must only evaluate “whether the officers’ actions are ‘objectively reasonable’ in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.” The “ ‘reasonableness’ of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.” “The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make judgments — in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving' — about the amount of force that is necessary in a particular situation.””

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 508 F. Supp. 2d 723 - Wanbaugh v. Fields

3. “Even if this Court had determined that the appellants were not permitted to detain appellee under the community caretaking function, the Court finds that the appellants were reasonable in their beliefs that this duty permitted them to briefly detain and investigate the identity and circumstances of appellee. As discussed earlier in this opinion, the availability of the community caretaking function as an alternative to reasonable suspicion under Terry v. Ohio is still a subject of debate in the courts. Thus, the appellants’ conduct cannot be found to have violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known,” Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727 , and the appellants are therefore entitled to qualified immunity on the Fourth Amendment illegal detention claim.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Tinius v. Carroll County Sheriff Department