Newman v. Guedry’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

22 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

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

1. “We review a summary judgment de novo, “using the same standard as that employed by the district court under Rule 56.” Kerstetter v. Pac. Scientific Co., 210 F.3d 431, 435 (5th Cir.2000). Summary judgment is appropriate “if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a).”

   4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Logisticare Solutions, LLC · State Auto Insurance v. Harrison County Commercial Lot, L.L.C.

2. “Guedry contends that he had no reasonable warning that tasing Newman multiple times violated Newman’s constitutional rights, because there was then no binding caselaw on the appropriate use of tasers. Lawfulness of force, however, does not depend on the precise instrument used to apply it. Qualified immunity will not protect officers who apply excessive and unreasonable force merely because their means of applying it are novel.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Ramirez v. Martinez · Ramirez v. Escajeda

3. “[l]awfulness of force ... does not depend on the precise instrument used to apply it. Qualified immunity will not protect officers who apply excessive and unreasonable force merely because their means of applying it are novel.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Graham v. Dall. Area Rapid Transit · Ramirez v. Escajeda