Sullivan v. Bornemann’s Empirical Analysis
384 F.3d 372 · 2004
Citation profile
3 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Bell v. Wolfish · Schmerber v. State of California · Rochin v. People of California · Duncan v. Walker · SAUCIER v. KATZ Et Al.
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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“'must be determined by balancing his liberty interests against the relevant state interests.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Leath v. Webb · Nelson v. Lott“It is undisputed that [the defendant officers] had no input into Sullivan’s medical care once he arrived in the emergency room. In addition, Sullivan has not argued that the catheterization was used to search for evidence determining his guilt or innocence. It is uncontested that the catheterization was performed solely to assure Sullivan’s medical well-being before he was transported to the county jail. We express no opinion on how, if at all, a difference in any of these circumstances would affect the analysis.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“the officers' acquiescence in the nurse's request to help her restrain Sullivan during the brief catheterization procedure violate[d Sullivan's] rights under either the Fourth or Fourteenth Amendments?”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Nelson v. Lott
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.