Palmieri v. Lynch’s Empirical Analysis
392 F.3d 73 · 2004
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 57 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably Spinelli v. City of New York (2009), Esmont v. City of New York (2005)
6 federal appellate · 2 district ·
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 Katz v. United States · Griffin v. Breckenridge · Camara v. Municipal Court of City and County of San Francisco · New Jersey v. T. L. O. · See v. City of Seattle
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 57 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Palmieri’s asserted privacy expectation was diminished for other reasons as well. For one, he had applied for a construction permit and was on notice that the application process would involve some form of site inspection---- [The official’s] intention ... was merely to perform her duties relative to the evaluation of Palmieri’s most recent permit application.... Indeed, it was Palmieri himself who set in motion the government conduct in question.”); accord, Manbeck v. Town of Lewisboro, 333 Fed.Appx. 599, 602 (2d Cir.2009) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“unless the individual [asserting the Fourth Amendment claim] manifested a subjective expectation of privacy in the object of the challenged search, and society [is] willing to recognize that expectation as reasonable.'”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“Merely looking at what is already exposed to view, without disturbing it — is not a 'search’ for Fourth Amendment purposes.”); Palmieri v. Lynch, 392 F.3d 73, 81 (2d Cir.2004) (”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.