Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 351 F.3d 278 - Heft v. Moore

Heft v. Moore’s Empirical Analysis

351 F.3d 278 · 2003

Citation profile

83
cited by 83 later decisions
November 2023
most recently cited

19 federal appellate ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 83 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably Dale v. Lappin (2004), Ortiz v. Aurora Health Care, Inc. (2011)

19 federal appellate ·

450200320102020decided

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. § 636

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · United States v. Ramirez · Roell v. Withrow · Baltimore Orioles, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Players Ass'n

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

  1. “We review [a] district court's rulings on motions in limine for an abuse of discretion.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Even construing all of the facts in the light most favorable to Heft, however, there is no genuine issue of material fact. The entirety of evidence presented by Heft in support of her claim that the defendants used unreasonable force in the search of her home was her allegation that her home was in a state of devastation immediately after the police raid. While the defendants agreed that they moved several items that belonged to Heft during the course of the search, they also alleged that her house was cluttered and disorderly prior to the search. Heft provided no evidence regarding the pre-search condition of her home or any specific evidence that any property item was damaged. In other words, Heft failed to provide evidence that the police harmed her property at all, let alone provide evidence that the police harmed her property unreasonably.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “a party seeking summary judgment always bears the initial responsibility of informing the district court of the basis for its motion, and identifying those portions of the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, which it believes demonstrate the absence of a genuine issue of material fact.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.