Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 545 F.2d 1260 - Bennett v. Passic

Bennett v. Passic’s Empirical Analysis

545 F.2d 1260 · 1976

Citation profile

204
cited by 204 later decisions
2
cited 2 times by the Supreme Court
5
states following
November 2023
most recently cited

87 federal appellate · 40 district · 11 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 204 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently November 2023 · most notably Chavez v. Martinez (2003), Martinez v. Aaron (1978)

87 federal appellate · 40 district · 11 state decisions

790197619801990200020102020decided

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. § 1915 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Adams v. Pate · Bethea v. Crouse · Ragan v. Cox · Ford v. Board of Managers of the New Jersey State Prison

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

  1. “The Miranda decision does not even suggest that police officers who fail to advise an arrested person of his rights are subject to civil liability; it requires, at most, only that any confession made in the absence of such advice of rights be excluded from evidence.”
    11 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “rational argument on the law or facts in support of his claim.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage
  3. “With respect to Bennett’s claim that certain items of clothing disappeared . . . Bennett fails to allege that the clothing was his, that any one of the defendants caused the disappearance, that the clothing would in fact have been introduced into evidence on his behalf, or that his inability to introduce it contributed to his conviction, that the items of clothing were improperly seized from him, or that he is entitled to compensation for the loss of the clothing. The claim is frivolous. 545 F.2d at p. 1264.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage

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.