Richardson v. McGriff’s Empirical Analysis
2000
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 14 district · 30 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 61 later decisions — most recently April 2022 · most notably Carter v. State (2002), Owens-Illinois, Inc. v. Cook (2005)
11 federal appellate · 14 district · 30 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Batson v. Kentucky · Graham v. Connor · Bell v. Wolfish · Malley v. Briggs
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 61 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[t]hat all warrants, without oath or affirmation, to search suspected places, or to seize any person or property, are [grievous] and oppressive; and all general warrants to search suspected places; or to apprehend suspected persons, without naming or describing the place, or the person in special, are illegal, and ought not to be granted.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“[T]he Fourth Amendment does not allow this type of “Monday morning quarterback” approach because it only requires that the seizure fall within a range of objective reasonableness.... It could be argued, of course, that [the officer’s] decision to use deadly force might not have been the most prudent course of action; other courses of action ... might conceivably have been available. The Constitution, however, requires only that the seizure be objectively reasonable, not that the officer pursue the most prudent course of conduct as judged by 20/20 hindsight vision. The Fourth Amendment inquiry focuses not on what the most prudent course of action may have been or whether there were other alternatives available, but instead whether the seizure actually effectuated falls within a range of conduct which is objectively “reasonable” under the Fourth Amendment. Alternative measures which 20/20 hindsight reveal to be less intrusive (or more prudent), such as waiting for a supervisor or the SWAT team, are simply not relevant to the reasonableness inquiry.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage““The documentary evidence sought to be excluded consisted of nine pages of single-spaced guidelines issued by the Baltimore City Police Department on the use of deadly force and 13 pages of single-spaced rules and regulations concerning a wide range of police conduct and behavior. Most of the rules and regulations, which cover the entire gamut of police conduct, from being courteous and fulfilling financial obligations, to saluting superior officers, to refraining from publicly criticizing public officials, to the circumstances when gambling, drinking, and smoking is not permitted, have no discernable relevance to any issue in the case.””
2 later decisions 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.