Shaw v. Garrison’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. “It should be borne in mind that the memorandum which [Garrison’s assistant] . . . wrote on his return from Baton Rouge did not mention any such meeting [Substantial doubts are raised regarding the validity and objectivity of the state’s case when a prosecuting attorney resorts to the use of such extraordinary tactics as were employed by Garrison on Russo. A fair inference to be drawn is that these ex parte procedures were used to implant into Russo’s mind a story implicating the plaintiff in an alleged conspiracy plot. This could have been aceom-plished by post-hypnotic suggestion. This inference is supported by the fact that Garrison immediately moved to arrest and charge Shaw based solely on Russo’s questionable, vague story. Such hasty action on the part of the defendant without submitting the matter, at that time, to the grand jury demonstrates ulterior motives.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Shaw v. Garrison · Russo v. Conde Nast Publications

2. “The burden of proof is, of course, upon the plaintiff Shaw to prove by a preponderance of the evidence the existence of exceptional and unusual circumstances that would justify this court’s interven-tion____ When the plaintiff’s evidence constitutes a prima facie case, the burden is on the defendant of going forward with any evidence to rebut the plaintiff’s case____ In this case the defendant Garrison offered no proof, apparently relying on the supposed inability of Shaw to sustain his burden and that even if Shaw did, he would not be entitled to any relief by this court. In those instances where the plaintiff proved certain facts by a preponderance of the credible evidence, and the defendant failed to rebut those facts either on cross-examination or by offering contrary evidence, this court has accepted those facts as true.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Shaw v. Garrison · Hand v. Gary

3. “in bad faith and for purposes of harassment,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Robertson v. Wegmann · Alfred Castellano v. Chris Fragozo et al.