Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 515 F.3d 1139 - Eidson v. Owens

Eidson v. Owens’s Empirical Analysis

515 F.3d 1139 · 2008

Citation profile

27
cited by 27 later decisions
2
states following
March 2023
most recently cited

9 federal appellate · 10 district · 2 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 27 later decisions — most recently March 2023 · most notably Thomas v. Durastanti (2010), Quinn v. Young (2015)

9 federal appellate · 10 district · 2 state decisions

180200820102020decided

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 Miranda v. State of Arizona Vignera · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Florida v. Royer · Rhode Island v. Innis · Johnson v. Jones

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

  1. “physical mistreatment, use of violence, threats, promises, inducements, deception, trickery, or an aggressive tone, the physical and mental condition and capacity of the defendant, the number of officers on the scene, and the display of police weapons. Whether an officer reads a defendant his Miranda rights, obtains consent pursuant to a claim of lawful authority, or informs a defendant of his or her right to refuse consent also are factors to consider in determining whether consent given was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The validity of a consent-based search is based upon the totality of the circumstances as to whether the consent was the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by the maker or whether it was the product of duress or coercion, express or implied. Relevant circumstances include physical mistreatment, use of violence, threats, promises, inducements, deception, trickery, or an aggressive tone, the physical and mental condition and capacity of the defendant, the number of officers on the scene, and the display of police weapons.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Qualified immunity does not, however, apply to the [plaintiffs’] [state law] malpractice claim. See Jenkins v. City of New York, 478 F.3d 76, 86 (2d Cir.2007) (stating that qualified immunity “protects an official from liability under federal causes of action but is not generally understood to protect officials from claims based on state law”).”
    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.