Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 423 MASS 735 - Commonwealth v. Garner

Commonwealth v. Garner’s Empirical Analysis

1996

Citation profile

17
cited by 17 later decisions
2
states following
November 2016
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 17 later decisions — most recently November 2016

3 federal appellate · 2 district · 12 state decisions

130199620002010decided

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 18 U.S.C. § 3109 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Graham v. Connor · Tennessee v. Garner · United States v. Salvucci · Miller v. United States · Wilson v. Arkansas

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

  1. “[flaeed with the weaponry and dispositions of the suspects inside the apartment, we think it parses a frightening situation too fine to fault the officer for not looking, or if he had looked, for not seeing the child after he broke the window and before he threw in the device. Although the stun grenade may be dangerous, it is important to recall that it is not intended to be. It is reusable and intended to frighten and distract. The judge found that the child sustained emotional injuries as a result of the assault and was treated a few days later ‘for a health complaint associated with smoke inhalation.’ The entry in force would have been frightening even if the device had been detonated down a hallway. And so, it must be said, would have been a gun battle in which police officers or one of the bystanders might have been shot or killed.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  2. “[T]o require the police, where possible, to submit their plans for forcible entries in detail for prior approval by a judicial officer ... would embark our judiciary on an enterprise for which we are ill equipped by training or experience.... [ Garner, supra, 672 N.E. 2d at 516 .]”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “unreasonable execution of a warrant may violate the Fourth Amendment,”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.