Manning v. Miller’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions

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

1. “Manning points to actions taken over the course of years that set the stage for his trial; the timing of some of these claimed actions well before trial lends some credence to Manning’s theory that this behavior goes beyond perjury. Such actions included inducing a witness to falsely identify Manning in a line-up, selecting Dye to be the jailhouse informant, and inducing Dye to create a false story. Manning argues that the agents failed to tell prosecutors that they had done these things. Further, Manning believes the agents created and submitted false written reports stating that Manning had confessed when they knew he had not, and destroyed or tampered with the physical evidence, namely the tapes of the purported confessions.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 813 F. Supp. 2d 946 - Tillman v. Burge

2. “Manning brings this claim against federal investigators under the authority of Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents, 403 U.S. 388 [ 91 S.Ct. 1999 , 29 L.Ed.2d 619 ] (1971). Although this Circuit has not explicitly recognized that Bivens may be employed to bring a Brady claim, we have recognized that Bivens may be used to bring claims for violations of procedural and substantive due process. See Alejo v. Heller, 328 F.3d 930 (7th Cir.2003); Hoosier Bancorp of Ind. v. Rasmussen, 90 F.3d 180 (7th Cir.1996). We have also entertained the use of a Bivens cause of action where the plaintiff complains that law enforcement officers created false evidence to be used at trial. Hammond v. Kunard, 148 F.3d 692 , 694-95 (7th Cir.1998).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Engel v. Buchan

3. “[a] court may not dismiss a case on the pleadings unless it appears 'beyond a reasonable doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Lesea, Inc. v. Lesea Broad. Corp.