Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 632 F.3d 1064 - Liberal v. Estrada

Liberal v. Estrada’s Empirical Analysis

632 F.3d 1064 · 2011

Citation profile

53
cited by 53 later decisions
2
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

18 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1331 · 28 U.S.C. § 2680 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Erie Co v. Tompkins · Anderson v. Creighton · Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp.

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

  1. “that the availability of an [immediate] appeal depends on whether, under state law, the immunity functions as an immunity from suit or only as a defense to liability.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[Defendants] argue that Officer Estrada had reasonable suspicion to stop and detain Plaintiff because the officer reasonably believed that Plaintiff was trying to avoid him by making several turns and then parking next to a dumpster in a darkened alley.... Officer Estrada did not have reasonable suspicion to initiate the stop: Plaintiff had violated no traffic laws, and he did not engage in headlong flight upon seeing Officer Estrada. Thus, even if Officer Estrada reasonably suspected that Plaintiff was avoiding him, such noncooperation, without more, does not support a suspicion that Plaintiff was engaged in criminal activity.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) whether the [consenting individual] was in custody; (2) whether the arresting officers had their guns drawn; (3) whether Miranda warnings were given 3 ; (4) whether the [consenting individual] was notified that she had a right not to consent; and (5) whether the [consenting individual] had been told a search warrant could be obtained.”
    1 later decision 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.