Trzebuckowski v. City of Cleveland’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 federal appellate · 3 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 59 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[i]n determining when the cause of action accrues in § 1983 cases, we look to the event that should have alerted the typical lay person to protect his or her rights.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gessner v. Vore, 22297 (8-1-2008) · Shane v. Tracy, Unpublished Decision (7-5-2007)

2. “We have previously held that when the outcome of a § 1983 action would conflict with the verdict in an underlying criminal proceeding, the accrual of the statute of limitations will be delayed beyond the time when a plaintiff has notice that his rights have been violated. See Shamaeizadeh v. Cunigan, 182 F.3d 391 (6th Cir.1999) (citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 , 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). In Shamaeizadeh , the plaintiff brought a § 1983 action seeking damages against state officials for an illegal search and seizure following the dismissal of criminal charges. Id. at 392. At issue in the case was whether the statute of limitations for the § 1983 action accrued on the date of the illegal search, when Shamaeizadeh was on notice that his rights were violated, or on the date that this court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the charges against him. Id. We held that the statute of limitations accrued on the date that the charges were dismissed, reasoning that “since ... the only evidence that was introduced against Sha-maeizadeh at trial was the evidence discovered in Shamaeizadeh’s house during the allegedly illegal search, it would not have been possible, while the criminal proceedings were pending, to determine whether a decision on Shamaeizadeh’s claim would imply the invalidity of his potential conviction without deciding issues common to the criminal action — i.e., whether the search was lawful.” Id. at 398. In other words, because a § 1983 plain”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 478 F. Supp. 2d 928 - Kucharski v. Leveille

3. “the subtle difference between a continuing violation and a continuing effect of a prior violation”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Wellswood Columbia, LLC v. Town of Hebron