Martinez v. Carr’s Empirical Analysis
479 F.3d 1292 · 2007
Citation profile
11 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Mitchell v. Forsyth · Duncan v. Walker · SAUCIER v. KATZ Et Al. · Michigan v. Chesternut · Illinois v. Caballes
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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In order to promote the efficient administration of public services, the doctrine of qualified immunity shields government officials performing discretionary functions from individual liability un-der42 U.S.C. § 1983 unless their conduct violates clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known. Qualified immunity is an affirmative defense to a section 1983 action, providing immunity from suit from the outset. Once a defendant asserts qualified immunity as a defense, the plaintiff must carry the burden of showing qualified immunity is not proper under the circumstances. To do this, the plaintiff must show that (1) the defendant’s conduct violated a constitutional right and (2) the law governing the conduct was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Strepka v. Sailors“Karam was not charged with a felony. She was not required to report to anyone. All she had to do was show up for court appearances and obtain permission from the court if she wanted to leave the state. Obtaining such permission, while not burden-free, posed much less of a burden to her than it would to a person charged with a felony. And, with regard to the requirement to appear in court, that was no more burdensome than the promise a motorist makes when issued a traffic citation. In sum, [the plaintiffs] release restrictions were de minimis. No Fourth Amendment seizure occurred.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Burg v. Gosselin“[The upshot of the officer's actions was that the defendant was given the freedom to choose not to be arrested and instead leave without any restrictions on his movement.”
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.