Michalik v. Hermann’s Empirical Analysis
422 F.3d 252 · 2005
Citation profile
27 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 94 later decisions — most recently April 2025 · most notably Gobert v. Caldwell (2006), Gates v. Texas Deparment of Protective & Regulatory Services (2008)
27 federal appellate · 1 district · 1 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. § 2675 · 28 U.S.C. § 2676 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Mitchell v. Forsyth · United States v. Leon · Franks v. Delaware · Malley v. Briggs
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 94 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“An officer need only plead his good faith, which then shifts the burden to the plaintiff, who must rebut the defense by establishing that the officer’s allegedly wrongful conduct violated clearly established law. The plaintiff bears the burden of negating the defense and cannot rest on conelusory allegations and assertions but must demonstrate genuine issues of material fact regarding the reasonableness of the officer’s conduct.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although issues of fact may exist as to the roles that [defendants] played in the investigation, and in providing some of the information to [the affiant], these issues of fact are not material to the [claim for causing a warrant to be issued without probable cause] because none of the evidence suggests that [defendants] prepared or presented the warrant or were fully responsible for its preparation or presentation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[L]iability under Malley may lie not only against the affiant, but also against . . . an officer who actually prepares the warrant application with knowledge that a warrant would be based solely on the document prepared . . . . We are unwilling, however, to extend such liability . . . beyond the affiant and person who actually prepared, or was fully responsible for the preparation of, the warrant application.”
2 later decisions 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.