Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 384 FSUPP2D 447 - Nolan v. Krajcik

Nolan v. Krajcik’s Empirical Analysis

2005

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
February 2019
most recently cited

4 district ·

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Terry v. Ohio · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Graham v. Connor

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

  1. “Qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability for civil damages when “their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 , 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738 , 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982). “[Wjhether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held personally liable for an allegedly unlawful action generally turns on the objective legal reasonableness of the action ... assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 639 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3038 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987) (quoting Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19 , 102 S.Ct. at 2738-39 ). While qualified immunity cannot protect the defendants from liability if, on an objective basis, no reasonably competent officer would have acted as [he or she] did, “if officers of reasonable competence could disagree on [the lawfulness of the alleged conduct], immunity should be recognized.” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 , 106 S.Ct. 1092, 1096 , 89 L.Ed.2d 271 (1986). Thus, the defense of qualified immunity “provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Id.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “is whether the force used was objectively reasonable under all the circumstances, that is, whether it was consistent with the amount of force that a reasonable police officer would think necessary to bring the arrestee into custody.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “Fourth Amendment jurisprudence has long recognized that the right to make an arrest [or seizure] necessarily carries with it the right to use some degree of physical coercion or threat thereof to effect it,”
    1 later decision 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.