Phillips v. Allen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

7 federal appellate · 1 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 22 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “[l]awyers' talk is no substitute for data.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage
   e.g. McCarty v. Menards · 296 F. Supp. 3d 936 - Silversun Indus., Inc. v. PPG Indus., Inc.

2. “[NJothing is obvious about the psychology of eyewitness identification. Indeed, one point well established in the psychology literature is that most people’s intuitions on the subject of identification are wrong. See Christopher Chabris & Daniel Simons, The Invisible Gorilla: How Our Intuitions Deceive Us (2010). We held in United States v. Williams, 522 F.3d 809 (7th Cir.2008), that someone who contends that a particular kind of procedure led to an unreliable identification needs evidence — if not from an expert’s affidavit, then from published work such as Elizabeth F. Loftus, et al., Eyewitness Testimony: Civil and Criminal (4th ed. 2007), the standard text in this field. [The Plaintiff] has not referred us to such evidence; he has only a lawyer’s confidence that what [the officer] did would have produced a worthless identification. Lawyers’ talk is no substitute for data.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Cage v. City of Chicago

3. “Application of the Biggers framework is possible, however, only after evidence has been gathered and an adversarial hearing held.”). For the purposes of determining whether an identification can support probable cause, the basic question is whether the identification procedure was”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Stansbury v. Wertman