Robins v. Harum’s Empirical Analysis
773 F.2d 1004 · 1985
Citation profile
107 federal appellate · 6 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 153 later decisions — most recently November 2021 · most notably Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Department (1988), Landes Construction Co. v. Royal Bank of Canada (1987)
107 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
Applies 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866) · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Terry v. Ohio · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Estelle v. Gamble · Parratt v. Taylor · Monroe v. Pape
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 153 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“continues throughout the time the arrestee is in the custody of the arresting officers”
4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Lester v. City of Chicago · Austin“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State ..., subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress....”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Since Parratt, other circuits have noted the existence of the distinction between a Fourteenth Amendment claim for deprivation of life, liberty or property without due process and a claim based upon a violation of Fourth Amendment rights, and have refused to apply the Parratt analysis to the latter.... Therefore, we conclude that the Parratt analysis is not applicable to a claim, such as the instant excessive use of force claim, brought under the Fourth Amendment.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majoritye.g. Gallo v. Miller
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.