Campos v. Van Ness’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

1 federal appellate · 3 district ·

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

1. “In short, defendants-appellants have not convinced us that Campos’s story is so “blatantly contradicted by the record ... that no reasonable jury could believe it.” Scott, 550 U.S. at 380 , 127 S.Ct. 1769 . Nor have they attempted, in the alternative, to accept all of Campos’s facts and inferences as true and “argue that even on [Campos’s] best case, they are entitled to immunity.” Mlodzinski [v. Lewis], 648 F.3d 24, 28 (1st Cir.2011). We therefore dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. See id.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 52 F. Supp. 3d 240 - Campos v. Van Ness

2. “While defendants-appellants dispute several aspects of Campos’s story, they are primarily asking us to set aside two claims she has made that are relevant to the issue of qualified immunity: (1) that Martins’s car was not moving when Van Ness fired the fatal shot; and (2) that the car began moving only after that point and did not move near Van Ness. Her testimony on those two points, in defendants-appellant’s view, contradicts the opinions of her own accident reconstruction and ballistics experts.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 52 F. Supp. 3d 240 - Campos v. Van Ness