Gauger v. Hendle’s Empirical Analysis
349 F.3d 354 · 2003
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 2 district · 5 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Wong Sun v. United States · Heck v. Humphrey · Malley v. Briggs · Brown v. Illinois
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 71 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]he problem was not that evidence useful to [the criminal defendant] was being concealed; the problem was that the detectives were giving false evidence”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“It might be argued that Gauger could have sued right after his arrest, even if he might also have waited until his criminal conviction was thrown out. But we do not think that such a conclusion would be consistent with Heck. For he could not knock out the arrest without also (by virtue of Wong Sun [v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963) ]) invalidating the use in evidence of his admissions, without which, as we have said, he could not be convicted. Heck, to repeat, says that a criminal defendant can’t sue for damages for violation of his civil rights, if the ground of his suit is inconsistent with his conviction having been constitutional, until he gets the conviction thrown out.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]hen a defendant is arrested and jailed on the basis of probable cause to believe that he has committed a crime and only later does police fraud enter the picture with the effect of perpetuating the seizure without good cause, there is a question not as yet authoritatively resolved whether the Fourth Amendment has been violated”). 4 . As he did in his first claim against the officers, Mr. Novitsky challenges the district court’s denial of his motion for partial summary judgment. He once more invokes the doctrine of collateral estoppel and argues that”
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.