Reedy v. Evanson’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

9 federal appellate · 9 district · 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 106 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “some type of resulting physical harm due to the defendant's outrageous conduct,”

   5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Geness v. Cox · Ferris v. Borough of Baldwin

2. “Probable cause “requires more than mere suspicion [.]” Orsatti, 71 F.3d at 482 . However, it does not “require the same type of specific evidence of each element of the offense as would be needed to support a conviction.” Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 149 , 92 S.Ct. 1921 , 32 L.Ed.2d 612 (1972). Rather, “probable cause to arrest exists when the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer’s knowledge are sufficient in themselves to warrant a reasonable person to believe that an offense has been or is being committed by the person to be arrested.” Orsatti 71 F.3d at 483 ; see also Wilson v. Russo, 212 F.3d 781, 789 (3d Cir.2000) (“Probable cause exists if there is a ‘fair probability’ that the person committed the crime at issue.” (citation omitted).). “Probable cause need only exist as to [one of the] offense[s] that could be charged under the circumstances.” Barna v. City of Perth Amboy, 42 F.3d 809, 819 (3d Cir.1994). In analyzing whether probable cause existed for an arrest, we must take a “totality-of-the-circumstances approach.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230 , 103 S.Ct. 2317 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 792 F. Supp. 2d 745 - Fisher v. Matthews

3. “In the context of a false arrest claim, after establishing that there is sufficient evidence of omissions and assertions made knowingly, or with reckless disregard for the truth, a court assesses whether the statements and omissions made with reckless disregard of the truth were material, or necessary, to the finding of probable cause. To determine the materiality of the misstatements and omissions, a court must excise the offending inaccuracies and insert the facts recklessly omitted, and then determine whether the “corrected” affidavit would establish probable cause. This two-part exercise-determining the affiant’s motivation and constructing a revised affidavit without material omissions or misstatements-ensures that a police officer does not make unilateral decisions about the materiality of information, or, after satisfying him or herself that probable cause exists, merely inform the magistrate or judge of inculpatory evidence. An officer contemplating an arrest is not free to disregard plainly exculpatory evidence, even if substantial inculpatory evidence (standing by itself) suggests that probable cause exists.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 955 F. Supp. 2d 345 - Meketa v. Kamoie