Winfield v. Keefe’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 district ·

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

1. “"Qualified immunity attaches when an official's conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." City of Escondido, Cal. v. Emmons , --- U.S. ----, 139 S. Ct. 500 , 503, 202 L.Ed.2d 455 (2019) (quoting Kisela , 138 S. Ct. at 1152 ; Alfano v. Lynch , 847 F.3d 71 , 75 (1st Cir. 2017). "The doctrine's prophylactic sweep is broad: it leaves unprotected only those officials who, from an objective standpoint, should have known that their conduct was unlawful." Alfano v. Lynch , 847 F.3d 71 , 75 (1st Cir. 2017). "Put another way, the doctrine protects all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law." Id. at 75 . "The qualified immunity analysis entails a two-step pavane." Id. "The first step requires an inquiring court to determine whether the plaintiff's version of the facts makes out a violation of a protected right." Id. "The second step requires the court to determine whether the right at issue was clearly established at the time of defendant's alleged misconduct." Id. "These steps, though framed sequentially, need not be taken in order." Id. "The 'clearly established' analysis has two sub-parts." Id. "The first sub-part requires the plaintiff to identify either controlling authority or a consensus of cases of persuasive authority sufficient to send a clear signal to a reasonable official that certain conduct falls short of the constitutional norm." Id. "The first sub-part of th”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Montel v. City of Springfield

2. “The question is not whether the official actually abridged the plaintiff's constitutional rights but, rather, whether the official's conduct was unreasonable, given the state of the law when he acted.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Montel v. City of Springfield

3. “The second sub-part asks whether an objectively reasonable officer in the defendant's position would have known that his conduct violated that rule of law.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Montel v. City of Springfield