Manis v. Lawson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 federal appellate · 2 state decisions

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

1. “not dispute the only fact material to whether [the officer] was justified in using deadly force: that [the decedent] reached under the seat of his vehicle and then moved as if he had obtained the object he sought”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Waller v. Hanlon · Munroe v. City of Austin

2. “Although a de minimis injury is not cognizable, the extent of injury necessary to satisfy the injury requirement is directly related to the amount of force that is constitutionally permissible under the circumstances. Any force found to be objectively unreasonable necessarily exceeds the de minimis threshold, and, conversely, objectively reasonable force will result in de minimis injuries only. Consequently, only one inquiry is required to determine whether an officer used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment. In short, as long as a plaintiff has suffered some injury, even relatively insignificant injuries and purely psychological injuries will prove cognizable when resulting from an officer's unreasonably excessive force.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. Sam v. Richard · Annie Sam v. Donald Thompson

3. “To prevail on an excessive force claim, a plaintiff must show '(1) an injury that (2) resulted directly and only from the use of force that was excessive to the need and that (3) the force used was objectively unreasonable.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Sam v. Richard · Annie Sam v. Donald Thompson