Altman’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
5 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 42 later decisions — most recently August 2024 · most notably State v. Mata (2003), No 02-2306
5 district · 2 state decisions
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 Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Graham v. Connor · Bell v. Wolfish
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 42 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“It is true that the Pfeil court did conclude that the officers’ conduct in shooting the dogs did not support a section 1983 action “because it did not violate a right guaranteed under the United States Constitution.” [Pfeil, 757 F.2d] at 866. But we think that the defendants read too much into this blanket statement. It does not appear from the Seventh Circuit’s opinion in Pfeil that the court was considering whether the officers’ conduct constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure of the dogs. Indeed, the Seventh Circuit characterized the plaintiffs Fourth Amendment claim as one for warrantless entry and had dismissed that claim earlier in the opinion. See id. at 865 . Because the Seventh Circuit did not consider whether the actions constituted a Fourth Amendment seizure of the dogs, it can hardly be said that its opinion included a holding with respect to that issue.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“It is important to note that we are not saying the officers' responses in these cases were the best possible responses. We are only saying that, under the circumstances existing at the time the officers took the actions and in light of the facts known by the officers, their actions were objectively reasonable.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Chastang v. Levy“[A]n officer commits an unreasonable, warrantless seizure of property, in violation of the Constitution, when he shoots and kills an individual's family pet when the pet presented no danger and when non-lethal methods of capture would have been successful.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Chastang v. Levy
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.