Cloaninger v. McDevitt’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 3 district · 2 state decisions

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

1. “Summary judgment “should be rendered if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Where a case is “decided on summary judgment, there have not yet been factual findings by a judge or jury, and [the appellant’s] version of events ... differs substantially from [the appellee’s,] ... courts are required to view the facts and draw reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the party opposing the ... motion.” Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372 , 127 S.Ct. 1769, 1774 , 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted). However, “[a]t the summary judgment stage, facts must be viewed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party only if there is a ‘genuine’ dispute as to those facts.” Id. at 1776 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)). Moreover, “the mere existence of some alleged factual dispute between the parties will not defeat an otherwise properly supported motion for summary judgment; the requirement is that there be no genuine issue of material fact.... Factual disputes that are irrelevant or unnecessary will not be counted.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986) (emphasis in original).”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Rountree v. Nunnery (In Re Rountree) · Structured Investments Co. v. Dunlap (In Re Dunlap)

2. “[t]aken in the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right? ... [I]f a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties’ submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established. This inquiry, it is vital to note, must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition; and it too serves to advance understanding of the law and to allow officers to avoid the burden of trial if qualified immunity is applicable.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 667 F. Supp. 2d 591 - Bostic v. Rodriguez · 658 F. Supp. 2d 713 - Munn-Goins v. Board of Trustees of Bladen Community College

3. “the right the official is alleged to have violated ... must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 667 F. Supp. 2d 591 - Bostic v. Rodriguez · 658 F. Supp. 2d 713 - Munn-Goins v. Board of Trustees of Bladen Community College