Motley’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

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

1. “In some parole search cases before 2001, courts held that a parole search was unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment because it was conducted for an improper or harassing purpose that did not serve the interests of parole or probation supervision. However, in 2001, the Supreme Court abrogated [those cases in Knights ], stating that “with the limited exception of some special needs and administrative search cases ‘we have been unwilling to entertain Fourth Amendment challenges based on the actual motivations of individual officers.’ ” Because the prohibition in Knights only prevents courts from relying on searching officers’ subjective intent to harass when assessing the reasonableness of a search under the Fourth Amendment, it is clear that courts must still hold that a parole search is unreasonable if conducted in a harassing manner.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 538 F. Supp. 2d 1217 - Smith v. City of Oakland

2. “Our jurisdiction is limited to questions of law, and does not extend to qualified immunity claims involving disputed issues of material fact. Where disputed facts exist, we assume that the version of the material facts asserted by Plaintiffs, as the nonmoving party, is correct.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
   e.g. Costanich v. DEPT. OF SOCIAL AND HEALTH SERVICES