Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 499 F.3d 199 - Curley v. Klem

Curley v. Klem’s Empirical Analysis

499 F.3d 199 · 2007

Citation profile

139
cited by 139 later decisions
8
states following
December 2024
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 27 district · 10 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 139 later decisions — most recently December 2024 · most notably McKenna v. City of Philadelphia (2009), Torres v. City of Madera (2011)

18 federal appellate · 27 district · 10 state decisions

960200720102020decided

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. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 455 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Batson v. Kentucky · Graham v. Connor · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Bell v. Wolfish

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 139 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “[F]actors include the possibility that the persons subject to the police action are themselves violent or dangerous, the duration of the action, whether the action takes place in the context of effecting an arrest, the possibility that the suspect may be armed, and the number of persons with whom the police officers must contend at one time ... the physical force applied [by the officers] ... the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officers or others, and whether he is actively resisting arrest or attempting to evade arrest by flight.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “the importance of resolving qualified immunity questions early is in tension with the reality that factual disputes often need to be resolved before determining whether defendant's conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right.... A decision as to qualified immunity is premature when there are unresolved disputes of historical facts relevant to the immunity analysis.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “[W]hether [a government official] made a reasonable mistake of law and is thus entitled to qualified immunity is a question of law that is properly answered by the court, not a jury.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent

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.