Dunn v. Denk’s Empirical Analysis
54 F.3d 248 · 1995
Citation profile
13 federal appellate · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 20 later decisions — most recently September 2022
13 federal appellate · 1 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Anderson v. Creighton · Graham v. Connor · Hudson v. McMillian · Davis v. Scherer · Austin Products Co. v. Workers' Compensation Insurers Rating Association of Minnesota
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 20 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Although no longer required, at the time of this incident significant injury was a necessary element of an excessive force claim. Accordingly, to defeat Denk’s qualified immunfiy defense Dunn was obliged to prove a significant injury.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passagee.g. Petta v. Rivera · Dunn v. Denk“the “directly and only” language [taken from applicable case law] was intended to distinguish between injuries resulting from excessive force and those resulting from the justified use of force. It was not intended to displace the venerable rule that a tortfeasor takes his victim as he finds him or to immunize the exacerbation of a pre-existing condition, leaving the weakest and most vulnerable members of society with the least protection from police misconduct.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent“Given the explicit language of Johnson, and its footnote 1 in particular, we conclude that the law at the time of this arrest was uncertain regarding whether “a significant injury will be caused by unnecessary .force without significant physical injury.” On the present facts, Denk was entitled to qualified immunity from the claims asserted in this case.”
1 later decision quote this exact passagee.g. Petta v. Rivera
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.