Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 696 F.3d 987 - Storey v. Taylor

Storey v. Taylor’s Empirical Analysis

696 F.3d 987 · 2012

Citation profile

26
cited by 26 later decisions
2
states following
March 2025
most recently cited

5 federal appellate · 5 district · 3 state decisions

Relationships

Relies on Payton v. New York · Brigham City v. Stuart · Schindler Elevator Corp. v. United States ex rel. Kirk · United States v. Jones · Reichle v. Howards

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

  1. “When a defendant asserts qualified immunity at the summary judgment stage, the burden shifts, to the plaintiff, who must clear two hurdles to defeat the defendant’s motion. The plaintiff must demonstrate, on the 'facts alleged, that (1) the defendant violated a constitutional right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the alleged unlawful activity..... A constitutional right is clearly established when, at the time of the alleged violation, the contours of the right were sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that his actions violate that right.... While the plaintiff does not have to present a case with an identical factual situation, the plaintiff must show legal authority making it apparent that in the light of pre-existing law a reasonable official would have known that the conduct in question violated the constitutional right at issue. In determining whether a right was clearly established, we look for Supreme Court or Tenth Circuit precedent on point or clearly established weight of authority from other courts finding the law to be as the plaintiff maintains.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “and the defendant verbally refused to comply each time: Officer: Sir, step out of the house. Defendant: No. Officer: Step out of the house. Defendant: I'm not doing it. Officer: You're going to step out of the house. Defendant: No. Officer: Listen. You shall obey my command and step outside the house or you go to jail. Step outside. Defendant: I am not doing that. Officer: Step out of the house. Defendant: Why are you doing this? Officer: You are going to comply with a lawful order. You don't want to deal with this, you can go to jail. 696 F.3d 987 , 991 (10th Cir. 2012) (”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “(1) the officers have an objectively reasonable basis to believe there is an immediate need to protect the lives or safety of themselves or others, and (2) the manner and scope of the search is reasonable.”
    1 later decision 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.