Graves’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

8 district · 2 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 41 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 656 F. Supp. 2d 1190 - C.F. v. Capistrano Unified School District · Victor Menotti Thomas Sellman Todd Stedl Doug Skove v. City of Seattle Paul Schell, Former Mayor of the City of Seattle Norman Stamper, Former Chief of Police of the City of Seattle Sharon Stevens, a Seattle Police Detective Ronald Smith, a Seattle Police Officer, Kenneth Hankin Jennifer Hudziec Stephanie Lane Denise Cooper Nicole Pearson on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. City of Seattle Paul Schell, Former Mayor of the City of Seattle Norman Stamper, Former Chief of Police of the City of Seattle

2. “for purposes of qualified immunity is an inquiry that must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition. In other words,”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Victor Menotti Thomas Sellman Todd Stedl Doug Skove v. City of Seattle Paul Schell, Former Mayor of the City of Seattle Norman Stamper, Former Chief of Police of the City of Seattle Sharon Stevens, a Seattle Police Detective Ronald Smith, a Seattle Police Officer, Kenneth Hankin Jennifer Hudziec Stephanie Lane Denise Cooper Nicole Pearson on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. City of Seattle Paul Schell, Former Mayor of the City of Seattle Norman Stamper, Former Chief of Police of the City of Seattle · Menotti

3. “On appeal, [the arresting officer] Dixon asserts that [the plaintiff] Crowell aroused additional suspicions during the stop because Crowell became increasingly loud during the encounter. But Cro-well was primarily asserting his Fourth Amendment right not to be searched and was speaking loudly to generate witnesses to his protest. While such behavior may have been discourteous or obnoxious or irritating to Dixon, we cannot conclude in the context of this case that Crowell’s verbal assertion of his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search, even if wrongly asserted, can be said to increase an officer’s suspicion that a crime had been or was being committed by Crowell.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 442 F. Supp. 2d 1080 - Freece v. Clackamas County