Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 559 FSUPP2D 648 - Henry v. Purnell

Henry v. Purnell’s Empirical Analysis

2008

Citation profile

3
cited by 3 later decisions
July 2011
most recently cited

2 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Relies on Brower v. County of Inyo · Maryland v. Garrison · Landol-Rivera v. Cruz Cosme · McLenagan v. Karnes · Pickett v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.

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

  1. “It is apparent from the opinion in Purnell II that even when, in the Fourth Circuit’s view, the underlying facts of the Henry/Purnell incident, viewed most favorably to Henry, do not themselves give rise to an inference that Purnell’s use of his Glock was unreasonable. Otherwise, the court would have ruled (as did I) that regardless of additional facts that might be learned from discovery on the training issues, genuine issues of material fact existed as to the reasonableness question. Therefore, I will focus my analysis here upon whether any of the facts (and reasonable inferences therefrom) that have been established during the course of the additional discovery would give rise to a finding of unreasonableness.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[p]erhaps ... Purnell's employer[] and/or the Taser manufacturer were negligent in not providing greater training,” but they”
    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.