Renda v. King’s Empirical Analysis
347 F.3d 550 · 2003
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 45 later decisions — most recently September 2021 · most notably Marra v. Philadelphia Housing Authority (2007), Sornberger v. City of Knoxville (2006)
9 federal appellate · 2 district · 3 state decisions
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 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Dickerson v. United States · Chavez v. Martinez · Government of the Virgin Islands v. Toto · McQueeney v. Wilmington Trust Co.
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 45 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“our prior decision in Giuffre [v. Bissell, 31 F.3d 1241 (3d Cir.1994) ] compels the conclusion that it is the use of coerced statements during a criminal trial, and not in obtaining an indictment, that violates the Constitution. See 31 F.3d at 1256 . In Giuffre, as in the present case, the police used statements allegedly obtained from a custodial interrogation where the plaintiff was not properly warned of his Miranda rights as a basis for filing criminal charges, but those charges were later dropped. See id. at 1250-51 . Under these circumstances, we held that Giuffre’s constitutional right against self-incrimination was not violated. See id. at 1256 . The same conclusion applies here.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“a plaintiff may not base a § 1983 claim on the mere fact that the police questioned the plaintiff in custody without providing Miranda warnings where there is no claim that the statements obtained in violation of Miranda were used against the plaintiff”). . Ferrari explains that his field notes with plaintiffs' social security numbers were destroyed, and they were only used to prepare the investigation report, to which only the state police have access. Moreover,”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]ndirect attacks on truthfulness include opinion evidence, reputation evidence, and evidence of corruption, which require the jury to infer that the witness is lying at present simply because he has lied often in the past.”
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.