Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 567 F.3d 302 - Grawey v. Drury

Grawey v. Drury’s Empirical Analysis

567 F.3d 302 · 2009

Citation profile

88
cited by 88 later decisions
May 2025
most recently cited

22 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 88 later decisions — most recently May 2025 · most notably Binay v. Bettendorf (2010), Burgess v. Fischer (2013)

22 federal appellate · 1 district ·

750200920102020decided

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 Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Graham v. Connor · Mitchell v. Forsyth · Pearson v. Callahan · Duncan v. Walker

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

  1. “the question is whether the defendants had fair warning that their actions were unconstitutional. Thus, officials can still be on notice that their conduct violates established law even in novel factual circumstances. 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
  2. “Thus, qualified immunity in excessive force cases is a two-step analysis.” Id. . Gonzalez testified during his deposition that he sustained other injuries, including bruises to his arms and back. He also reported stomach pain to a doctor as St. Elizabeth Medical Center on the day he was released from jail. However, in his Second Amended Complaint, Gonzalez only complains that the officers were deliberately indifferent to his eye swelling. Therefore, the Court will only consider Gonzalez’s claim with respect to that injury. . Gonzalez has not cited, nor is the Court aware of any evidence that suggests he sustained a concussion as a result of being kicked in the head. When Gonzalez was being processed at the Kenton County Detention Center on July 18, 2009, a nurse reported that Gonzalez only complained of swelling to his right eye. The report does not suggest that Gonzalez ever complained of an injury to his head. However, at his deposition, Gonzalez testified that he never met with a nurse or doctor at Kenton County Detention Center, as reported by the Kenton County Detention Center "Physician’s Written Orders/Inmate Medical Record.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “In excessive force cases, however, because the defendant’s conduct must have been objectively unreasonable to find a constitutional violation, the third step is redundant. Thus, qualified immunity in excessive force cases is a two-step analysis.” Ibid, (internal citations omitted). 8 . Kijowski suggests that the police also violated his rights by pulling him from the truck, slamming him to the ground, and kicking him. See Appellant’s Br. at 22. However, the only conduct he specifically attributes to Officer Aurilio is use of the Taser. Because”
    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.