Giles v. Kearney’s Empirical Analysis
571 F.3d 318 · 2009
Citation profile
21 federal appellate · 10 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 206 later decisions — most recently May 2023 · most notably Blunt v. Lower Merion School District (2014), Thomson v. Salt Lake County (2009)
21 federal appellate · 10 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.
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 1915 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Anderson v. Creighton · Anderson v. City of Bessemer City · United States v. United States Gypsum Co. · 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 206 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). To determine whether there is a genuine dispute,”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“the responsibility of an appellate court to accept the ultimate factual determination of the fact-finder unless that determination either (1) is completely devoid of minimum evidentiary support displaying some hue of credibility, or (2) -bears no rational relationship to the supportive evidentiary data.” Giles v. Kearney, 571 F.3d 318, 322 (3d Cir.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). A -Magistrate Judge’s order is contrary to law”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“Although the District Court may be correct in its conclusion of law, that reasonable officers dealing with an undisputedly assaultive inmate could disagree as to whether force of the type used against Giles was excessive, such a legal conclusion in this case rests on a factual presumption that is inappropriate on summary judgment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissente.g. Klein v. Madison
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.