Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 759 F.2d 1371 - Heller v. Bushey

Heller v. Bushey’s Empirical Analysis

759 F.2d 1371 · 1985

Citation profile

35
cited by 35 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
June 2002
most recently cited

23 federal appellate · 1 district ·

How this case has been cited

Cited by 35 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2002 · most notably City of Los Angeles v. Heller (1986), Benigni v. City of Hemet (1988)

23 federal appellate · 1 district ·

240198519902000decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

Appellate journey

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Rizzo v. Goode · Cinevision Corporation v. City of Burbank Cinevision Corporation

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

  1. “that exceeded the force necessary under the circumstances to effect arrest. The jury's verdict for the defendant therefore embodies a finding that Heller was arrested for reasonable cause and that the amount of force used was not unreasonable or excessive. The difficulty is that the conclusion that the force was reasonable could have been derived either from Police Department regulations, which incorporate a theory of 'escalating force,' or from a constitutional standard entirely independent of such regulations. We cannot say which with assurance.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “The proper individual defendants in this action are those officials who were in office before or at the time [the plaintiff] was arrested and who may have adopted a plan or policy authorizing or approving the unconstitutional conduct”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “improper when there is conflicting testimony raising a question of witness credibility because '[i]t is the exclusive function of the jury to weigh the credibility of the witnesses.' " Donoghue, 848 F.2d at 932 (quoting Twin City Fire Ins., 795 F.2d at 1423)). DISCUSSION 7 "To establish the liability of individual defendants under section 1983, a plaintiff must show, first, that he was deprived of an interest protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States and, second, that the defendants caused the deprivation while acting under color of state law.”
    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.