Martin v. Strasburg’s Empirical Analysis
689 F.2d 365 · 1982
Citation profile
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 19 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2000
7 federal appellate · 1 district · 3 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.
Appellate journey
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · In the Matter of Samuel Winship · Gerstein v. Pugh · Preiser v. Rodriguez · Addington v. Texas
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.
“not as yet had a 'judicial determination of probable cause which the Fourth Amendment requires as a prerequisite to extended restraint of liberty following arrest[,]'”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. A.J., by His Mother and Next Friend, L.B., on Behalf of Himself and All Others Similarly Situated v. David Kierst, Jr., in His Official Capacity as Juvenile Officer Jim Morrison, in His Official Capacity as Director of Residential Services Sherman Williams, in His Official Capacity as Director of Detention Judge Edith L. Messina, in Her Official Capacity as Chief Administrative Officer of Juvenile Detention and as Judge of the Juvenile Division of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit of the State of Missouri, (Two Cases) · Aj Lb v. Kierst L“Then again, Juvenile Center, as much as we might try, is not the most pleasant place in the world. If you put them in detention, you are liable to be exposing these youngsters to all sorts of things. They are liable to be exposed to assault, they are liable to be exposed to sexual assaults. You are taking the risk of putting them together with a youngster that might be much worse than they, possibly might be, and it might have a bad effect in that respect.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Schall v. Martin“the statute places no limits on the crimes for which the person subject to detention has been arrested . . ., the judge ordering detention is not required to make any evaluation of the degree of likelihood that the person committed the crime of which he is accused[,] . . . [and] the statute places no limits on the type of crimes that the judge believes the detained juvenile might commit if released.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Schall v. Martin
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.