Pierce v. Multnomah County’s Empirical Analysis
76 F.3d 1032 · 1996
Citation profile
85 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 176 later decisions — most recently June 2022 · most notably Robert Devereaux v. Timothy David Abbey (2001), Howard v. Everex Systems, Inc. (2000)
85 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
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.
Relationships
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Terry v. Ohio · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Anderson v. Creighton
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 176 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[T]he Fourth Amendment sets the applicable constitutional limitation on the treatment of an arrestee detained without a warrant up until the time such arrestee is released or found to be legally in custody based upon probable cause for arrest.”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrencee.g. Hill v. Algor · Riley v. Dorton“'If conflicting inferences may be drawn from the facts, the case must go to the jury.'”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“In defining a seizure in Graham , the Supreme court noted that it had “riot resolved the ■ question whether ■ the Fourth Amendment continues to provide individuals with protection against the deliberate rise of excessive physical force beyond the point at which arrest ends and pretrial detention begins.” This statement suggests that “arrest” for fourth amendment purposes encompasses more than the moment of arrest, but continues until pretrial detention begins. In addition, because the statement questions only whether the fourth amendment applies once pretrial protection begins, the statement also implies that fourth amendment protection against excessive force governs at least until pretrial detention begins.”
2 later decisions 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.