636 F. Supp. 2d 545 - Modrell v. Hayden’s Empirical Analysis
2009
Citation profile
1 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Matsushita Electric Industrial Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corporation · Anderson v. Creighton · Payton v. New York · Duncan v. Walker
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 6 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“On May 30, 2005, an individual reported to the McCracken County Sheriffs Office that Plaintiff Phillip Murray Modrell’s son, Richard Modrell, was delivering methamphetamine to local convenience stores while on duty as a Domino’s Pizza delivery person. Richard Modrell resided at 256 Nickell Heights. On June 7, 2005, Defendant Jon Hayden, a detective for the McCracken County Sheriffs Office, received a call from Bridgette Maxie, an employee of the Kentucky Department of Families and Children, concerning another complaint of illegal drug activity at 256 Nickell Heights. Maxie stated that a caller reported that adults at the residence used methamphetamine and crack cocaine, and that Michelle Lindsey and her fifteen year old daughter used marijuana together in the home. The caller also indicated that there were loaded guns in the house and that adults answered the door with guns in their hands. Pursuant to Max-ie’s request, Defendant Jesse Riddle, a deputy for the McCracken County Sheriffs Office, accompanied Maxie to the residence on June 8, 2005, so that her office could investigate the complaint. Upon arrival at 256 Nickell Heights, Riddle knocked on the door and made contact with Plaintiff! 1 ] Riddle and Maxie informed Plaintiff that they were looking for Lindsey and her daughter. Plaintiff advised them that Lindsey and her daughter lived downstairs and that Riddle and Maxie would need to go around downstairs. [Riddle returned to his car and drove to the back of the house.] A”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“P. Modrell: This is not part of the house. That’s separate quarters down there. Det. Riddle: Well, it’s part of the house because they’ve got a stairwell. How did your — how did this other daughter get upstairs with this female if it ain’t part of the house? P. Modrell: She’s been up here since yesterday. Det. Riddle: Well, she was just downstairs where I was. P. Modrell: She just came up the steps. Det. Riddle: That’s right. And it's part of the house. P. Modrell: You mind waiting outside? Det. Riddle: No, sir. I’m not going to wait outside. Ms. Maxie: (Inaudible) So I can figure out what to do with her.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.