Botello v. Gammick’s Empirical Analysis
413 F.3d 971 · 2005
Citation profile
8 federal appellate · 4 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 31 later decisions — most recently March 2024 · most notably Lacey v. Maricopa County (2012), Ewing v. City of Stockton (2009)
8 federal appellate · 4 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
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1367 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Imbler v. Pachtman · Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati · Board of the County Commissioners of Bryan County v. Brown · Forrester v. White
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 31 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under [the prosecutors'] nonprosecution policy, it made no difference whether [the officer] was a potential witness, or whether his testimony could be corroborated by other witnesses or physical evidence. Instead, [the prosecutors] sought to usurp the staffing decisions [the police chief] might make to use [the officer] in ways that would not compromise a criminal prosecution and would comport with the prosecutors' nonprosecution policy. In Roe , the police chief had a number of staffing choices in light of the prosecutors' qualified nonprosecution policy, including transferring [the officer] as the chief did, or making sure that there would always be an officer other than [the officer in question] who could testify or corroborate [the officer's] testimony. [The prosecutors in this case] gave [the police chief] no such options.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“dictating to [new employer] how future criminal investigations should be conducted and staffed”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Savage v. Maryland
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.