Jones v. Perrigan’s Empirical Analysis
459 F.2d 81 · 1972
Citation profile
30 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 55 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently April 2012 · most notably Gomez v. Toledo (1980), Dellums v. Powell (1977)
30 federal appellate · 3 district · 4 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. § 1331 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · Haines v. Kerner · Bell v. Hood · Pierson v. Ray · Henry v. United States
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 55 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Thus there are two standards to be considered. The first is what constitutes reasonableness for purposes of defining probable cause under the fourth amendment for the protection of citizens against governmental overreaching. The other standard is the less stringent reasonable man standard of the tort action against government agents. This second and lesser standard is appropriate because, in many cases, federal officers cannot be expected to predict what federal judges frequently have considerable difficulty in deciding and about which they frequently differ among themselves. It would be contrary to the public interest if federal officers were held to a probable cause standard as in many cases they would fail to act for fear of guessing wrong. Consequently the law ought to, and does, protect government agents if they act in good faith and with a reasonable belief in the validity of the arrest and search.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“We disagree with the basis of the decision of the District Court. As a matter of public policy, certain officials are absolutely immune from liability for acts committed within the scope of their office, even if the acts were corrupt or malicious. See e. g., Tenny v. Brandhove, 341 U.S. 367 [ 71 S.Ct. 783 , 95 L.Ed. 1019 ] (1951) (legislators); Bradley v. Fisher, 80 U.S. (13 Wall) [ 20 L.Ed. 646 ] (1971) (judges). The immunity of law enforcement officers from false arrest liability is a qualified one in the nature of an affirmative defense. Immunity is available only if the officer acted in good faith with probable cause.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Jones’ complaint alleged that Perrigan acted willfully, deliberately, wrongfully, knowingly, and illegally and without probable or reasonable cause. These allegations, however inartfully pleaded, are sufficient to call for the opportunity to offer supporting evidence. Whether the defense of qualified immunity is available cannot be determined appropriately from the pleadings.”
1 later decision 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.