Fisher v. Harden’s Empirical Analysis
398 F.3d 837 · 2005
Citation profile
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently May 2020 · most notably Burgess v. Fischer (2013), Miller v. Sanilac County (2010)
23 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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
Relies on Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Terry v. Ohio · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Illinois v. Gates
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 76 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[First, the plaintiff can] “show prior instances of unconstitutional conduct demonstrating that the [municipality] has ignored a history of abuse and was clearly on notice that the training in this particular area was deficient and likely to cause injury.” In the alternative, “a single violation of federal rights, accompanied by a showing that a municipality has failed to train its employees to handle recurring situations presenting an obvious potential for such a violation, could trigger municipal liability.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]n the context of a mental health seizure an officer must have probable cause to believe that the person seized poses a danger to himself or others.... A showing of probable cause in the mental health seizure context requires only a “probability or substantial chance” of dangerous behavior, not an actual showing of such behavior.... [A] mental health seizure can rest upon probable cause even when the person seized does not actually suffer from a dangerous mental health condition.... Courts evaluate the existence of probable cause from the perspective of a reasonable and objective person in the position of the seizing official.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“First, we determine whether, based upon the applicable law, the facts viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs show that a constitutional violation has occurred. Second, we consider whether the violation involved a clearly established constitutional right of which a reasonable person would have known. Third; we determine whether the plaintiff has offered sufficient evidence to indicate that what the official allegedly did was objectively unreasonable in light of the clearly established constitutional rights.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
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.