Quesinberry v. Rouppasong’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

32 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 34 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Determining whether the force used to effect a particular seizure is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment 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. Our Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to make an arrest or investigatory stop necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it. Because the test of reasonableness under the Fourth Amendment is not capable of precise definition or mechanical application, however, its proper application requires careful attention to the facts and circumstances of each particular case, including 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 resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight. The reasonableness of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. With respect to a claim of excessive force, the same standard of reasonableness at the moment applies: Not every push or shove, even if it may later seem unnecessary in the peace of a judge’s chambers, violates the Fourth Amendment. The calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgm”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Heyward v. Christmas

2. “(1) Did the Court of Appeals err in reversing the trial court’s denial of EFC’s motion for directed verdict on the invasion of privacy claim? (2) Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the trial court’s grant of EFC’s motion for directed verdict on the libel claim? (3) Did the Court of Appeals err in affirming the trial court’s grant of EFC’s motion for directed verdict on the breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing claim?”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Swinton Creek Nursery v. Edisto Farm Credit