Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 772 F. Supp. 2d 377 - Odom v. Matteo

772 F. Supp. 2d 377 - Odom v. Matteo’s Empirical Analysis

2011

Citation profile

9
cited by 9 later decisions
1
states following
July 2019
most recently cited

5 district · 1 state decisions

Relationships

Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988

Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Celotex Corporation v. Catrett H · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Graham v. Connor · City of Canton v. Harris

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

  1. “(1) the defendant participated directly in the alleged constitutional violation, (2) the defendant, after being informed of the violation through a report or appeal, failed to remedy the wrong, (3) the defendant created a policy or custom under which unconstitutional- practices occurred, or allowed the continuance of such a policy or custom, (4) the defendant was grossly negligent in supervising subordinates who committed the wrongful acts, or (5) the defendant exhibited ' deliberate indifference to the rights of [persons] by failing to act on information ■ indicating that unconstitutional acts were occurring.”
    3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “It is well-settled in this Circuit that personal involvement of defendants in alleged constitutional deprivations is a prerequisite to an award of damages under § 1983.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “In sum, the use of a [taser is a significant use of force, and a reasonable jury could well find that its repeated deployment on an individual who is suspected of only minor traffic infractions, poses no immediate threat, is not aitempting to escape, and has indicated that she suffers from a brain injury constitutes an excessive and unreasonable use of force.”
    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.