King v. Massarweh’s Empirical Analysis
782 F.2d 825 · 1986
Citation profile
20 federal appellate · 1 district ·
How this case has been cited
Cited by 46 later decisions — most recently October 2021 · most notably Sutton v. Providence St. Joseph Medical Center (1999), Pleasant v. Lovell (1989)
20 federal appellate · 1 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 · Payton v. New York · Parratt v. Taylor · Monroe v. Pape · Daniels v. Williams
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 46 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Defendants are constitutionally obligated to ensure that a judicial officer is available to make a probable cause determination within the requisite period of time ... The Supreme Court in Gerstein sharply limited that ‘balancing,’ ‘consideration of all the circumstances,’ or determination of ‘reasonableness’ a court or finder-of-fact should engage in such cases when it stated that the existence of probable cause justifies only the arrest and “a brief period of detention to take the administrative steps incident to arrest.” (citation omitted). ‘Once the suspect is in custody ... the reasons that justify dispensing with the magistrate’s neutral judgment evaporate.’ (citation omitted). The onus is then on the arresting and holding officers to ensure that the suspect receives a prompt determination of probable cause.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“... Massarweh’s involvement with the police is even more attenuated [than the involvement of IBM in Arnold]. Massarweh’s sole act was to call the police. Nothing in the record indicates that Massarweh exerted any control over the officers’ decision to search appellants’ apartments or to arrest the appellants. On the facts alleged by the appellants, Massarweh sought the appellants’ removal as trespassers, but the police conduct that allegedly violated the plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights took place on the officers’ own initiative.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage“The question is whether [the private defendant] is sufficiently connected with the clear state action in this case to have caused these acts to occur within the meaning of section 1983.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage
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.