Williams Lb v. Kaufman County’s Empirical Analysis
343 F.3d 689 · 2003
Citation profile
7
cited by 7 later decisions
1
states following
June 2010
most recently cited
1 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · 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 7 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[A] person's mere propinquity to others independently suspected of criminal activity does not, without more, give rise to probable cause to search that person.... Where the standard is probable cause, a search or seizure of a person must be supported by probable cause particularized with respect to that person. This requirement cannot be undercut or avoided by simply pointing to the fact that coincidentally there exists probable cause to search or seize another or to search the premises where the person may happen to be.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“). Defendants cross-appeal the district court's judgment in favor of plaintiffs on their claims for illegal strip search, municipal liability against the county, nominal and punitive damages against Harris in his personal capacity, and state constitutional declarative relief. For the following reasons, we affirm. I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS 2 In April of 1995, Sheriff Harris obtained a search warrant, based on information he received from a confidential informant, for a night club called the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“24 23 Here, the district court concluded, relying primarily on Ybarra, that Harris's strip search of plaintiffs violated their Fourth Amendment rights. On appeal, Harris and the County contend that the violent history of the Club created exigent circumstances, which threatened officer safety and thus justified the strip search of the plaintiffs. In contrast to Ybarra, they argue, the exigent circumstances in this case presented a situation in which there was”
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.