Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 255 F.3d 77 - Santos Cruz v. David Miller, Superintendent, Eastern Correctional Facility

Santos Cruz v. David Miller, Superintendent, Eastern Correctional Facility’s Empirical Analysis

255 F.3d 77 · 2001

Citation profile

60
cited by 60 later decisions
1
states following
March 2024
most recently cited

26 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 60 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Sellan v. Kuhlman (2001), United States v. Newton (2004)

26 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

410200120102020decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Terry v. Ohio · Williams v. Taylor · United States v. Mendenhall · Brecht v. Abrahamson

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

  1. “we are determining the reasonableness of the state courts' `decision,' not grading their papers”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Although our inquiry ... is to determine whether the state courts reasonably applied clearly established Supreme Court law, we think it appropriate to make some examination of how the federal courts of appeals have analyzed the issue....”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “the need for law enforcement officers to protect themselves and other prospective victims of violence in situations where they may lack probable cause for an arrest. When an officer is justified in believing that the individual whose suspicious behavior he is investigating at close range is armed and presently dangerous to the officer or to others, it would appear to be clearly unreasonable to deny the officer the power to take the necessary measures to determine whether the person is in fact carrying a weapon and to neutralize the threat of physical harm.”
    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.