Bailey v. Pataki’s Empirical Analysis
708 F.3d 391 · 2013
Citation profile
9 federal appellate · 1 district · 2 state decisions
Relationships
Applies 18 U.S.C. § 4247 · 18 U.S.C. § 4248 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill · Pearson v. Callahan · Duncan v. Walker · SAUCIER v. KATZ 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 21 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“The first involves plaintiffs tased while actively resisting arrest by physically struggling with, threatening, or disobeying officers. In the face of such resistance, courts conclude either that no constitutional violation occurred, or that the right not to be tased while resisting arrest was not clearly established at the time of the incident.... In the second group of cases, a law-enforcement official tases plaintiff who has done nothing to resist arrest or is already detained. Courts faced with this scenario hold that a § 1983 excessive-force claim is available, since the right to be free from physical force when one is not resisting the police is a clearly established right.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence“in situations where a predeprivation hearing is unduly burdensome in proportion to the liberty interest at stake ... post-deprivation remedies may satisfy due process”); Bailey v. Pataki; 708 F.3d 391 , 405 (2d Cir.2013) (quoting Zinermon, 494 U.S. at 132 , 110 S.Ct. 975 ) ("[Wjhere the State feasibly can provide a predeprivation hearing ... it generally must do so regardless of the adequacy of a post-deprivation ... remedy.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority“There is some tension in our Circuit's cases as to whether the qualified immunity standard is of two or three parts, and whether the 'reasonable officer' inquiry is part of step two-the 'clearly established' prong-or whether it is a separate, third step in the analysis.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
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.