Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 284 F.3d 863 - Young v. Harrison

Young v. Harrison’s Empirical Analysis

284 F.3d 863 · 2002

Citation profile

33
cited by 33 later decisions
2
states following
April 2024
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 11 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 33 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Sanders ex rel. Sanders v. City of Minneapolis (2007), Dean v. Byerley (2004)

9 federal appellate · 11 district · 2 state decisions

210200220102020decided

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

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Anderson v. Creighton · Graham v. Connor

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

  1. “[T]o withstand a motion for summary judgment on qualified-immunity grounds, a plaintiff must (1) assert a violation of a constitutional right; (2) demonstrate that the alleged right is clearly established; and (3) raise a genuine issue of fact as to whether the government official knew or should have known that his alleged conduct violated this clearly established right.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Rambo was asked to leave the hotel by the officers, acting at the request of and on behalf of the hotel manager, because of his disorderly behavior. Thus, Rambo was justifiably ejected from the hotel ... and the rental period therefore had terminated. At that time, control over the hotel room reverted to the management. Rambo no longer had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the hotel room, and therefore is now without standing to contest the officers’ entry (search) into the hotel room. Rambo cannot assert an expectation of being free from police intrusion upon his solitude and privacy in a place from which he has been justifiably expelled.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “`creates a disturbance, though [he] has a right under his contract to remain so long as he acts with due regard to the rights of others, the proprietor ... or their agents, may use the amount of force necessary to expel.'”
    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.