Gausvik v. Perez’s Empirical Analysis
345 F.3d 813 · 2003
Citation profile
22
cited by 22 later decisions
2
states following
May 2018
most recently cited
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Beck v. State of Ohio · Duncan v. Walker · SAUCIER v. KATZ Et Al. · Johnson v. Jones
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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Gausvik’s Sixth Amendment claim mirrors his deliberate-fabrication-of-evidence argument. He believes Perez violated his Sixth Amendment right to compulsory process by using interview tactics that made the children recall misinformation. He relies upon various studies indicating that suggestive interrogations can cause children to believe in the truth of false reports presented to them. Given our holding that Perez did not deliberately fabricate the evidence, we find no Sixth Amendment violation. Suggestive interview tactics alone do not amount to a constitutional violation. [Citation omitted].”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“independent evidence that the [government] was somehow improperly motivated.”); United States v. Thompson, 130 F.3d 676 , 686 n. 17 (5th Cir.1997) (no demonstration of malice in tape's destruction); Gausvik v. Perez, 345 F.3d 813, 818 (9th Cir.2003) (The defendant must “put forward specific, nonconclusory factual allegations that establish improper motive.”); Collins v. Commonwealth, 951 S.W.2d 569, 573 (Ky.1997) (Defendant”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Ex Parte Napper“[Inaccuracy] claims do not show[the state employee] continued the investigation despite knowing [the subject of a child abuse investigation] was innocent or that he used investigative techniques that he knew would yield false information.... While [the state employee's] affidavit may have been careless or inaccurate, it does not satisfy Devereaux's stringent test.”
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.