Porter v. White’s Empirical Analysis
483 F.3d 1294 · 2007
Citation profile
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 29 later decisions — most recently March 2025 · most notably Moldowan v. City of Warren (2009), Haley v. City of Boston (2011)
12 federal appellate · 2 district · 2 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 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Brady v. State of Maryland · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · United States v. Bagley · United States v. Agurs · Giglio 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 29 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In the criminal or habeas context, a prosecutor’s culpability is irrelevant for purposes of demonstrating a procedural due process violation based on a Brady nondisclosure. That is, a defendant establishes a Brady violation in the criminal or habeas context whenever he can show that favorable evidence material to his case was not disclosed to the defense, “irrespective of the good faith or bad faith of the prosecution.” Brady, 373 U.S. at 87 , 83 S.Ct. at 1197 (emphasis added); see Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263, 288 , 119 S.Ct. 1936, 1952 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999) (“[UJnder Brady an inadvertent nondisclosure has the same impact on the fairness of the proceedings as deliberate concealment”); Agurs, 427 U.S. at 110 , 96 S.Ct. at 2401 (“If the suppression of evidence results in constitutional error, it is because of the character of the evidence, not the character of the prosecutor”). The Brady rule thus imposes a no-fault standard of care on the prosecutor. If favorable, material evidence exclusively in the hands of the prosecution team fails to reach the defense — for whatever reason — and the defendant is subsequently convicted, the prosecution is charged with a Brady violation, and the defendant is entitled to a new trial....”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“'the Due Process Clause is simply not implicated by a negligent act of an official causing unintended loss of or injury to life, liberty, or property' ") (quoting Daniel , 474 U.S. at 328 , 106 S.Ct. 662 ); see also Cty. of Sacramento v. Lewis , 523 U.S. 833 , 849, 118 S.Ct. 1708 , 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998) ("the Constitution does not guarantee due care on the part of state officials; liability for negligently inflicted harm is categorically beneath the threshold of constitutional due process”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.