Parker v. Gerrish’s Empirical Analysis
547 F.3d 1 · 2008
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 26 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 75 later decisions — most recently December 2023 · most notably Maldonado v. Fontanes (2009), Sykes v. Anderson (2010)
33 federal appellate · 26 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.
Appellate journey
reviewedthe decision below (from Maine District Court)
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Graham v. Connor · Scott v. Harris · Begay v. United States · Rivera-Gomez v. de Castro · Correa v. Hospital San Francisco
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 75 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“A motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a) must “specify the judgment sought and the law and facts that entitle the movant to the judgment.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(a)(2). The motion “must be sufficiently specific so as to apprise the district court of the grounds relied on in support of the motion.” Zachar v. Lee, 363 F.3d 70 , 73 (1st Cir.2004) (citing Correa v. Hosp. San Francisco, 69 F.3d 1184 , 1196 (1st Cir.1995)). Such a motion “preserves for review only those grounds specified at the time, and no others.” Id. (quoting Correa, 69 F.3d at 1196 ) ... But, “[a]s the name implies, a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law under Fed.R.Civ.P. 50(b) is bounded by the movant’s earlier Rule 50(a) motion.” Correa, 69 F.3d at 1196 . “The movant cannot use such a motion as a vehicle to introduce a legal theory not distinctly articulated in its close-of-evidence motion for a directed verdict.” Id.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“'whether the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged violation,' and 'whether a reasonable officer, similarly situated, would understand that the challenged conduct violated that established right.'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[T]he plaintiff had been stopped on suspicion of driving while intoxicated. After the plaintiff failed several sobriety tests, the officer tried to arrest him. When the plaintiff resisted, the officer drew his Taser and ordered the plaintiff to turn around and place his hands behind his back. The plaintiff complied but clasped his right wrist with his left hand. Another officer approached and cuffed the plaintiff's left wrist. There was substantial dispute about what happened next, but according to the plaintiff's account (to which the court was required to defer in the posture of the case), he released his right wrist, yet was tased anyway.”
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.