Llaguno v. Mingey’s Empirical Analysis
763 F.2d 1560 · 1985
Citation profile
120 federal appellate · 2 district · 13 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 202 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently May 2023 · most notably Anderson v. Creighton (1987), County of Riverside v. McLaughlin (1991)
120 federal appellate · 2 district · 13 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Harlow v. Fitzgerald · Illinois v. Gates · Scheuer v. Rhodes · Wong Sun v. United States · Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics
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 202 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“[w]here the issue arises in a damage suit, it is, as the panel opinion acknowledged, a proper issue for the jury if there is room for a difference of opinion. The underlying issue in deciding whether the police had probable cause to do what they did is reasonableness, which is also the underlying issue in deciding negligence — a classic jury issue.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“administrative steps incident to arrest.”
6 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“It did not require 42 hours to book David Llaguno and complete other paperwork necessary for bringing him before the magistrate to determine whether there was probable cause to hold him. ... Of course the delay here was not indefinite, but it was almost two days; and with no better reason offered than that the police were still investigating David’s possible involvement in the crimes of his brother, it was too long. David Llaguno was entitled to a directed verdict that the defendants were liable for his being held in jail — at least beyond the brief period that would have been necessary to book him and bring him before a magistrate.”
5 later decisions 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.