Cameron v. Fogarty’s Empirical Analysis
806 F.2d 380 · 1986
Citation profile
34 federal appellate · 11 district · 3 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 135 later decisions — most recently June 2019 · most notably Rose 88-1634 v. Bartle a Reed W 88-1646 (1989), Thomas v. Roach (1999)
34 federal appellate · 11 district · 3 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 28 U.S.C. § 1738 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))
Relies on Scheuer v. Rhodes · Monroe v. Pape · Florida v. Royer · Allen v. McCurry · Imbler v. Pachtman
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 135 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“In sum, we conclude that the proper accommodation between the individual’s interest in preventing unwarranted intrusions into his liberty and society’s interest in encouraging the apprehension of criminals requires that § 1983 doctrine be deemed, in the absence of any indication that Congress intended otherwise, to incorporate the common-law principle that, where law enforcement officers have made an arrest, the resulting conviction is a defense to a § 1983 action asserting that the arrest was made without probable cause.”
7 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[t]here is no claim under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983 for false arrest, false imprisonment or malicious prosecution if plaintiff was convicted of the offense for which he was arrested.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Collateral estoppel ... “precludes a party from relitigating in a subsequent action or proceeding an issue clearly raised in a prior action or proceeding and decided against that party ..., whether or not the tribunals or causes of action are the same.” The doctrine applies if the issue in the second action is identical to an issue which was raised, necessarily decided and material in the first action, and the plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the earlier action.”
2 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.