Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 82 F.3d 248 - Gardner v. Buerger

Gardner v. Buerger’s Empirical Analysis

82 F.3d 248 · 1996

Citation profile

74
cited by 74 later decisions
3
states following
April 2024
most recently cited

51 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 74 later decisions — most recently April 2024 · most notably Ryther v. KARE 11 (1997), Hathaway v. Runyon (1997)

51 federal appellate · 3 district · 5 state decisions

3801996200020102020decided

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

Relies on Graham v. Connor · Tennessee v. Garner · California v. Hodari D. · Lavender v. Kurn · Nebraska v. Wyoming

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

  1. “This demanding standard reflects our concern that, if misused, judgment as a matter of law can invade the jury's rightful province.”
    8 later decisions quote this exact passage
  2. “Police officers have tough jobs, and the calculus of reasonableness must embody allowance for the fact that police officers are often forced to make split-second judgments-in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage
  3. “A seizure-by-shooting is objectively reasonable when `the officer [using the force] has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a significant threat of death or serious physical injury to the officer or others.'”
    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.