Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 621 F.2d 607 - Hall v. Tawney

Hall v. Tawney’s Empirical Analysis

621 F.2d 607 · 1980

Citation profile

255
cited by 255 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
8
states following
January 2023
most recently cited

106 federal appellate · 23 district · 9 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 255 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently January 2023 · most notably Parratt v. Taylor (1981), Shillingford v. Holmes (1981)

106 federal appellate · 23 district · 9 state decisions

124019801990200020102020decided

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 Conley v. Gibson · Estelle v. Gamble · Monroe v. Pape · Paul v. Davis · Baker v. McCollan

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

  1. “Members of the jury, you are instructed to use the following standard for determining the amount of force necessary to make the defendant liable. The force used by the officer is unconstitutionally excessive if the officer used a means so brutal, demeaning and harmful as literally to shock the conscience of a court. You must determine whether the force applied caused injury so severe, was so disproportionate to the need presented and was so inspired by malice or sadism rather than a merely careless or unwise excess of zeal that it amounted to a brutal or inhumane abuse of official power literally shocking to the conscience.”
    39 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  2. “right to ultimate bodily security--the most fundamental aspect of personal privacy--is unmistakably established in our constitutional decisions as an attribute of the ordered liberty that is the concern of substantive due process.... [W]e simply do not see how we can fail also to recognize it in public school children under the disciplinary control of public school teachers.”
    19 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “[i]t does not follow that all invasions, however trivial or frivolous, serve to activate remedies under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as those parts of the Bill of Rights which are incorporated in and made a part of due process.”
    5 later decisions 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.