Margaret S. Rodriguez v. Donald E. Ritchey’s Empirical Analysis
556 F.2d 1185 · 1977
Citation profile
53 federal appellate · 6 district · 9 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 126 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Ellis v. Blum (1981), Smiddy v. Varney (1981)
53 federal appellate · 6 district · 9 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 Erie Co v. Tompkins · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Katz v. United States · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics · 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 126 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(I)f the facts supporting an arrest are put before an intermediate such as a magistrate or grand jury, the intermediate's decision breaks the causal chain ....”
9 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“. . . just because a person validly arrested is later discovered to be innocent does not make the arrest “unlawful” for fourth amendment purposes. To the contrary, it has long been settled that an indictment by a properly constituted grand jury conclusively determines the existence of probable cause and provides the authority for an arrest warrant to issue. The conclusion to be drawn is readily apparent: since there was no unconstitutional arrest, no claim has been stated under the Bivens rationale. Rodriguez v. Ritchey, 556 F.2d at 1190-1191 .”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The provisions of this chapter and section 1346(b) of this title shall not apply to— Any claim arising out of-assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, libel, slander, misrepresentation, deceit, or interference with contract rights: Provided, That, with regard to acts or omissions of investigative or law enforcement officers of the United States Government, the provisions of this chapter and section 1346(b) of this title shall apply to any claim arising, on or after the date of the enactment of this proviso, out of assault, battery, false imprisonment, false arrest, abuse of process, or malicious prosecution. For the purpose of this subsection, “investigative or law enforcement officer” means any officer of the United States who is empowered by law to execute searches, to seize evidence, or to make arrests for violations of Federal law.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.