Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 279 F.3d 463 - McNair v. Coffey

McNair v. Coffey’s Empirical Analysis

279 F.3d 463 · 2002

Citation profile

41
cited by 41 later decisions
1
states following
February 2021
most recently cited

17 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 41 later decisions — most recently February 2021 · most notably Chelios v. Heavener (2008), Driebel v. City of Milwaukee (2002)

17 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

340200220102020decided

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 Terry v. Ohio · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Anderson v. Creighton · Graham v. Connor · Mitchell v. Forsyth

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

  1. “Conducting such an analysis complies with the Saucier Court's ultimate goal of establishing legal principles that remove uncertainty in the case law, guiding public officials in their daily conduct, and protecting all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly break the law from future nettlesome lawsuits.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  2. “It is a basic premise of our legal system that juries are the triers of fact only; it is for the judge, not the jury to interpret the law and to draw the line in the sand separating conduct that is protected and unprotected under the constitution.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “[u]nless it appears that the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, will support a reliable inference of wantonness in the infliction of pain under the standard we have described, the case should not go to the jury.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.