Baird v. Renbarger’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 4 district ·

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

1. “For example, we held that gun pointing when an individual presents no danger is unreasonable and violates the Fourth Amendment. See Jacobs v. City of Chicago, 215 F.3d 758 , 773-74 (7th Cir.2000) (pointing a gun at an elderly man’s head for ten minutes even after realizing that he is not the desired suspect and when he presents no resistance is “out of proportion to any danger that Jacobs could possibly have posed to the officers or any other member of the community”); McDonald v. Haskins, 966 F.2d 292, 294-95 (7th Cir.1992) (pointing a gun at a nine-year-old child during a search and threatening to pull the trigger was “objectively unreasonable”). In a slightly different context, we observed that “police officers do not have the right to shove, push, or otherwise assault innocent citizens without any provocation whatsoever.” Clash v. Beatty, 77 F.3d 1045, 1048 (7th Cir.1996).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mata Ex Rel. J.A.M v. City of Farmington

2. “First, the search and seizure concerned the crime of altering a special identification number. See Ind.Code § 9-18-8-12 (2008). This is a far cry from crimes that contain the use of force as an element, crimes involving possession of illegal weapons, or drug crimes, all of which are associated with violence. Second, there was never a reason to suspect that there was any threat to the safety of the officers involved. McCracken had been to the site the day before, and the officers made no mention of danger or violence during the search. Third, none of the plaintiffs resisted detention or attempted to flee.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Mata Ex Rel. J.A.M v. City of Farmington

3. “Plaintiffs need not show physical injury in order to sustain an excessive force claim. Such a rule would be inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling in California v. Hodari D., 499 U.S. 621 , 111 S.Ct. 1547 , 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991), recognizing that an arrest can be effectuated by the slightest application of physical force, or by some other show of authority. Id. at 625 , 111 S.Ct. 1547 . The issue is simply whether, once it is clear (as it is here) that a seizure has occurred, that seizure meets Fourth Amendment standards.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 693 F. Supp. 2d 823 - Gray v. CITY OF HAMMOND, INDIANA