Craighead v. Lee’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

38 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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

1. “the decision to use deadly force is a discretionary decision entitling a police officer to official immunity absent a willful or malicious wrong. Official immunity also protects government entities from vicarious liability for actions that are entitled to immunity. In determining whether an official committed a willful or malicious wrong, the court considers whether the official has intentionally committed an act that he had reason to believe is prohibited. Whether or not an officer acted willfully or maliciously is usually a question of fact to be resolved by the jury. The reasoning that led us to affirm the denial of qualified immunity as to plaintiffs' Section 1983 claims leads us to affirm the denial of official immunity as to the state-law claims.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Johnson v. City of Minneapolis · Henderson v. City of Woodbury

2. “[T]he question is whether the officers' actions are `objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Peters v. Woodbury County · Hassan v. City of Minneapolis

3. “put officers on notice ... that they may not use deadly force under circumstances in which they should know that the suspect does not present an immediate threat of serious physical injury or harm”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Partridge v. City of Benton