Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 340 F.3d 959 - Miller v. Clark County

Miller v. Clark County’s Empirical Analysis

340 F.3d 959 · 2003

Citation profile

75
cited by 75 later decisions
2
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably Bryan v. MacPherson (2010), Glenn v. Washington County (2011)

25 federal appellate · 8 district · 3 state decisions

480200320102020decided

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

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Graham v. Connor · Duncan v. Walker · SAUCIER v. KATZ Et Al. · Tennessee v. Garner

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

  1. “(1) the severity of the crime at issue, (2) whether the suspect posed an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and (3) whether the suspect was actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.”
    6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Our analysis involves three steps. First, we must assess the severity of the intrusion on the individual's Fourth Amendment rights by evaluating `the type and amount of force inflicted.'”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “and not severe where the officer was closely following behind the canine and called the canine off quickly after the initial contact. Id. at 1257 (contact was so brief that the Sergeant questioned whether contact had even occurred). In viewing the facts in the light most favorable to Koistra, the canine bit into her left finger, left hand, left arm, face, mouth and skull for about thirty seconds even though she surrendered by showing herself, putting her hands up and saying”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.