Kaufman v. Higgs’s Empirical Analysis
697 F.3d 1297 · 2012
Citation profile
5 federal appellate · 4 district · 1 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 28 U.S.C. § 1343 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Pearson v. Callahan · Florida v. Royer · Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada Humboldt County et al.
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.
“[W]e think it prudent to clarify ... the role played by state law in determining whether Plaintiff can show a violation of ... federal rights. Here, where the context is an alleged [wrongful] arrest for a purported state offense, state law is of inevitable importance.'The basic federal constitutional right of freedom from arrest without probable cause is undoubtedly clearly established by federal cases. But the precise scope of that right uniquely depends on the contours of a state’s substantive criminal law in this case because the Defendants claim to have had probable cause based on a state criminal statute. And as to the interpretation of [that state’s] criminal law, other than the statute itself ..., [that state’s] Supreme Court is the ultimate authority. So we look to the [state] Supreme Court’s decisions when inquiring whether the Defendants’ interpretation of the ... statute was one that a reasonable officer would have held at the time of [Plaintiffs] arrest.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Under this limited jurisdiction, we may review the district court’s abstract legal conclusions, such as whether the law was clearly established at the time of the alleged infraction.”). 7 . It is not uncommon in cases like this one— where (as explicated infra) law enforcement officer defendants base their assertion of probable cause for an arrest or prosecution on a state statute—for us to examine state caselaw, notably, that of the state’s appellate courts and, more specifically, the”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Garcia v. Escalante“had probable cause based on a state criminal statute.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Cummings v. Dean
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.