Jones v. Buchanan’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

33 federal appellate · 7 district · 1 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 88 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “requires a careful balancing of the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing governmental interests at stake.”

   6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. E.W. v. Dolgos · E.W. v. Rosemary Dolgos

2. “A court determines whether an officer has used excessive force to effect a seizure based on a standard of “objective reasonableness.” [It should] consider facts “from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene,” and avoid judging the officer’s conduct with the “20/20 vision of hindsight,” recognizing that “police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments — in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.” [The court does] not consider the officer’s “intent or motivation.” Rather, “the question is whether a reasonable officer in the same circumstances would have concluded that a threat existed justifying the particular use of force.” [The court should] weigh “the nature and quality of the intrusion on the individual’s Fourth Amendment interests against the countervailing government interests at stake.” This test requires [it] to determine the reasonableness of an officer’s actions and is “not capable of precise definition or mechanical application.” Instead, it “requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case.” Those facts and circumstances include “the severity of the crime at issue,” whether the “suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others,” and whether the suspect “is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.” The extent of the plaintiffs injury is also a relevant consideration. The “question [is] whether the totality of the circumstances justif”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Hupp v. State Trooper Seth Cook · 265 F. Supp. 2d 594 - Byrd v. Hopson

3. “The Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable seizures bars police officers from using excessive force to seize a free citizen.”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. E.W. v. Dolgos · Hupp v. State Trooper Seth Cook