Mecham v. Frazier’s Empirical Analysis
500 F.3d 1200 · 2007
Citation profile
18 federal appellate · 11 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 47 later decisions — most recently November 2023 · most notably Deville v. Marcantel (2009), Mattos v. Agarano (2011)
18 federal appellate · 11 district ·
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 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Graham v. Connor · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Scott v. Harris · City of Los Angeles v. Heller · Ernest Medina v. Michael Cram - Ralph Bruning City of Colorado Springs Loren Kramer
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 47 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[a]n unpublished opinion ... provides little support for the notion that the law is clearly established on [a] point.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“To assess whether the right was clearly established, we must ask if “the right [was] sufficiently clear that a reasonable officer would understand that what he is doing violates that right.” Medina [v. Cram], 252 F.3d [1124] at 1128 [ (10th Cir.2001)]. This inquiry “must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition. The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation.” Cortez v. McCauley, 478 F.3d 1108 , 1114 (10th Cir.2007) (citations and quotations omitted). To survive a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff must show the right was clearly established in a particularized sense.... This court has held that for a right to be particularized, there must ordinarily be a Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit decision on point, or clearly established weight of authority from other courts.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Nevertheless, what should have been a routine encounter turned into a fifty-minute ordeal requiring arrest. Before the officers used force to remove Mecham from her car, the following events occurred. (1) Mecham balked at Frazier’s report that her Arizona license was suspended — insisting it was valid — and then contributed to the unresolved mystery about her Utah license on file by denying its existence. (2) She then persisted in using a cell phone during the encounter despite Frazier’s instructions to put it down. (3) She ignored his repeated warnings to get out of the car under penalty of arrest, and forced Frazier to call a tow truck and backup support. (4) During this encounter, she remained in the driver’s seat with the keys to the car, exercising control of the car at all times. (5) When backup officer Johnson arrived on the scene, she nonetheless ignored his additional entreaties to exit the car. (6) Then, she was given a last opportunity to cooperate when the officers told her point blank that further resistance would be met with arrest. (7) Mecham, again, refused and the officers followed through with their promised response. In these circumstances, it was a foregone conclusion that the officers would have to use force to make the arrest.”
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.