Mitchell v. Boelcke’s Empirical Analysis
440 F.3d 300 · 2006
Citation profile
4 federal appellate ·
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · United States v. Cortez · Duncan v. Walker · SAUCIER v. KATZ Et Al. · United States v. Arvizu
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 14 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“First, [an official] must single out a person belonging to an identifiable group, such as those of a particular race or religion, or a group exercising constitutional rights, for prosecution even though he has decided not to prosecute persons not belonging to that group in similar situations. Second, [the official] must initiate the prosecution with a discriminatory purpose. Finally, the prosecution must have a discriminatory effect on the group which the defendant belongs to.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“[w]e will find an abuse of discretion only when we have a definite and firm conviction that the trial court committed a clear error of judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Workman v. Bredesen
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.