Jack Harris, II v. City of Roseburg, Municipal Corporation, John Miller and Les Bergman’s Empirical Analysis
664 F.2d 1121 · 1981
Citation profile
46 federal appellate · 11 district · 12 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 102 later decisions — most recently August 2018 · most notably Gibson v. United States (1986), Wilborn v. Escalderon (1986)
46 federal appellate · 11 district · 12 state decisions
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 Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Fuentes v. Shevin · Pierson v. Ray · Wood v. Strickland
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 102 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[Tjhere may be a deprivation within the meaning of § 1983 not only when there has been an actual “taking” of property by a police officer, but also when the officer assists in effectuating a repossession over the objection of a debtor or so intimidates a debtor as to cause him to refrain from exercising his legal right to resist a repossession. While mere acquiescence by the police to “stand by in case of trouble” is insufficient to convert a repossession into state action, police intervention and aid in the repossession does constitute state action. Harris’ deposition raises factual questions which preclude summary judgment on this issue.”
11 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“mere acquiescence by the police to `stand by in case of trouble' was insufficient to convert the repossession of the truck into state action.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[a] person subjects another to the deprivation of a constitutional right within the meaning of ... section 1983 if he does an affirmative act, participates in another's affirmative acts, or omits to perform an act which he is legally required to do that causes a deprivation of which complaint is made. Personal participation is not necessary. Anyone who causes any citizen to be subjected to a constitutional deprivation is also liable. Requisite causal connection can be established not only by some kind of direct personal participation in the deprivation, but also by setting in motion a series of acts by others which the actor knows or reasonably should know would cause others to inflict the unconstitutional injury.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Specht v. Jensen
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.