Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 69 F.3d 1002 - Mackinney v. Nielsen

Mackinney v. Nielsen’s Empirical Analysis

69 F.3d 1002 · 1995

Citation profile

76
cited by 76 later decisions
1
states following
January 2024
most recently cited

25 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 76 later decisions — most recently January 2024 · most notably Donnell Jeffers v. James Gomez Director California Department of Corrections (2001), Boyd v. Benton County (2004)

25 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions

3301995200020102020decided

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

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Anderson v. Creighton · Haines v. Kerner · City of Canton v. Harris · Gerstein v. Pugh

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

  1. “Probable cause exists when 'the facts and circumstances within the arresting officer's knowledge are sufficient to warrant a prudent person to believe that a suspect has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “`(1) his or her personal involvement in the constitutional deprivation, or (2) a sufficient causal connection between the supervisor's wrongful conduct and the constitutional violation.'”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “while police, no less than anyone else, may resent having obscene words and gestures directed at them, they may not exercise the awesome power at their disposal to punish individuals for conduct that is not merely lawful but protected by the First Amendment.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority

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.