Mark v. Furay’s Empirical Analysis
769 F.2d 1266 · 1985
Citation profile
33 federal appellate · 3 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 64 later decisions — most recently January 2017 · most notably Sims v. Mulcahy (1990), Schertz v. Waupaca County (1989)
33 federal appellate · 3 district ·
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 Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co. · Monroe v. Pape · Paul v. Davis · Baker v. McCollan
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 64 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““Sehertz’s claim — that the investigating officers harbored malicious motives toward him — does not address an issue material to the disposition of this case. Regardless of the defendant’s motives toward the plaintiff, the existence of probable cause for arrest is an absolute bar to a Section 1983 claim for unlawful arrest, false imprisonment, or malicious prosecution. If, however, the finding of probable cause is based on the defendant’s intentional misrepresentation or concealment of material facts, the plaintiff may be able to proceed on a Fourth Amendment claim challenging the reasonableness of an arrest. In this case Schertz does not claim that the defendants concealed or misrepresented facts actually known to them; therefore the existence of probable cause bars plaintiff’s Section 1983 claim.””
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“The question of whether a municipality caused a constitutional deprivation does not even arise absent proof that a deprivation in fact occurred.”
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.