Street v. Surdyka’s Empirical Analysis
492 F.2d 368 · 1974
Citation profile
87 federal appellate · 22 district · 19 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 196 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently July 2024 · most notably Welsh v. Wisconsin (1984), Moore v. Marketplace Restaurant, Inc. (1985)
87 federal appellate · 22 district · 19 state decisions — followed in 11 states
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. § 242 · 21 U.S.C. § 872 (§ 502 of the Controlled Substances Act) · 26 U.S.C. § 7607 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Carroll v. United States · Coolidge v. New Hampshire · Beck v. State of Ohio · Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. · Ker v. State of California
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 196 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The states are free to impose greater restrictions on arrests, but their citizens do not thereby acquire a greater federal right.”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[I]f Officer Surdyka violated this Maryland law, he may be liable to plaintiff in an action under the common law of false arrest or false imprisonment. But section 1983 does not provide a remedy for common law torts. Instead it creates a federal cause of action against those acting under color of state law who cause a “deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws (of the United States).””
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“But there is no warrant for treating the question in state law terms. The problem is not whether state law has been violated but whether an inhabitant of a State has been deprived of a federal right by one who acts under “color of any law.””
4 later decisions 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.