Wilson III’s Empirical Analysis
Citation profile
40 district · 5 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 66 later decisions — most recently July 2020 · most notably Shelby Paige Holland Marty Shane Holland Anthony Scott "Scotty" Holland Kristy Denise Holland Dane v. Robin S Harrington Duke Schirard Kelly Davis -, Olsen
40 district · 5 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
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton · Estelle v. Gamble
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 66 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“fashion in shooting and killing a man. Specifically, we affirmed the district court's denial of a police officer's motion for summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity in a § 1983 action involving excessive deadly force. After concluding that the victim's right to be free from excessive force was a clearly established right, like the Fourth Amendment right to be free from unreasonable seizures, we held that summary judgment on the basis of qualified immunity was improper because, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party,”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“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“Once the affirmative defense of qualified immunity is asserted, the plaintiff bears the burden of coming forward with facts “sufficient to show both that the defendant’s alleged conduct violated the law and that that law was clearly established when the alleged violation occurred.” Pueblo Neighborhood Health Ctrs., Inc. v. Losavio, 847 F.2d 642, 646 (10th Cir.1988). To survive a motion for summary judgment, the plaintiff must show the right was “clearly established” in a “particularized” sense. Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 640 , 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3039 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987). One purpose of this requirement is notice; officials cannot “reasonably be expected to anticipate subsequent legal developments” nor “fairly be said to ‘know’ that the law forbade conduct not previously identified as unlawful.” Powell [v. Mi kulecky], 891 F.2d [1454] at 1456 [(10th Cir.1989) ] (quoting Harlow [v. Fitzgerald], 457 U.S. [800] at 818, 102 S.Ct. [2727] at 2738 [ 73 L.Ed.2d 396 ] [(1982)]). 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. Medina v. City & County of Denver, 960 F.2d 1493, 1498 (10th Cir.1992).”
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.