Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 316 F.3d 128 - Jocks v. Tavernier

Jocks v. Tavernier’s Empirical Analysis

316 F.3d 128 · 2003

Citation profile

175
cited by 175 later decisions
1
states following
May 2025
most recently cited

15 federal appellate · 17 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 175 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Durruthy v. Pastor (2003), Halsey v. Pfeiffer (2014)

15 federal appellate · 17 district · 1 state decisions

1220200320102020decided

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 · Dunaway v. New York · Broughton v. State · Weyant v. Okst · Ricciuti v. N.Y.C. Transit Authority

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

  1. “[ijn general, probable cause to arrest exists when the officers have knowledge or reasonably trustworthy information of facts and circumstances that are sufficient to warrant a person of reasonable caution in the belief that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing a crime.... The question of whether or not probable cause existed may be determinable as a matter of law if there is no dispute as to the pertinent events and the knowledge of the officers ... or may require a trial if the facts are in dispute.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “[W]hile an arresting officer may not disregard information known to him in making an arrest, he is not required 'to investigate exculpatory defenses offered by the person being arrested or to assess the credibility of unverified claims of justification before making an arrest.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “[c]laims for false arrest or malicious prosecution, brought under § 1983 to vindicate the Fourth and Fifteenth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures, are substantially the same as claims for false arrest or malicious prosecution under state law,”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage

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.