Clemente v. Vaslo’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district ·

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

1. “For a right to be clearly established, "[t]he contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right." Anderson v. Creighton , 483 U.S. 635 , 640, 107 S.Ct. 3034 , 97 L.Ed.2d 523 (1987)."It is important to emphasize that this inquiry 'must be undertaken in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition.' " Brosseau v. Haugen , 543 U.S. 194 , 198, 125 S.Ct. 596 , 160 L.Ed.2d 583 (2004) (quoting Saucier [ v. Katz ], 533 U.S. [194] at 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151 [ 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001) ] )."The general proposition, for example, that an unreasonable search or seizure violates the Fourth Amendment is of little help in determining whether the violative nature of particular conduct is clearly established." Ashcroft v. al-Kidd , 563 U.S. 731 , 131 S.Ct. 2074 , 2084, 179 L.Ed.2d 1149 (2011) (citing Saucier , 533 U.S. at 201-02, 121 S.Ct. 2151 ). Thus, "[t]he relevant, dispositive inquiry ...is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted." Saucier , 533 U.S. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151 (citing Wilson v. Layne , 526 U.S. 603 , 615, 119 S.Ct. 1692 , 143 L.Ed.2d 818 (1999) ). "We look first to the decisions of the Supreme Court, and then to the case law of this circuit in determining whether the right claimed was clearly established when the action complained of occurred." Gragg v. Ky. Cabinet for Workforce Dev. , 289 F.3d 95”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. TC Reiner v. Canale · Ricks v. Pauch

2. “[T]he case law must 'dictate, that is, truly compel (not just suggest or allow or raise a question about), the conclusion for every like-situated, reasonable government agent that what defendant is doing violates federal law in the circumstances.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. TC Reiner v. Canale · Ricks v. Pauch

3. “'a case directly on point' [to demonstrate] that the law is clearly established, 'but existing precedent must have placed the statutory or constitutional question beyond debate.'”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. TC Reiner v. Canale · Ricks v. Pauch