Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 822 F.2d 697 - Patton v. Przybylski

Patton v. Przybylski’s Empirical Analysis

822 F.2d 697 · 1987

Citation profile

120
cited by 120 later decisions
3
states following
July 2024
most recently cited

50 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 120 later decisions — most recently July 2024 · most notably DeWalt v. Carter (2000), Walker v. Thompson (2002)

50 federal appellate · 4 district · 3 state decisions

61019871990200020102020decided

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 Conley v. Gibson · Hishon v. King & Spalding · Paul v. Davis · Gerstein v. Pugh · Baker v. McCollan

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

  1. “[T]o arrest a person over his vigorous protest that he is the wrong man — a protest given.some credibility in this case by the-driver’s license — and keep him in jail for this period without either investigating the case or bringing him before a magistrate raises serious constitutional questions. ... Baker v. McCol-lan is not to the contrary.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Obviously, one in respondent’s position could not be detained indefinitely in the face of repeated protests of innocence even though the warrant under which he was arrested and detained met the standards of the Fourth Amendment. For the Constitution likewise guarantees an accused the right to a speedy trial, and invocation of the speedy trial right need not await indictment or other formal charge; arrest pursuant to probable cause is itself sufficient.... We may even assume, arguendo, that, depending on what procedure the State affords defendants following arrest and prior to actual trial, mere detention pursuant to a valid warrant but in the face of repeated protests of innocence will after the lapse of a certain amount of time deprive the accused of “liberty ... without due process of law.” But we are quite certain that a detention of three days over a New Year’s weekend does not and could not amount to such a deprivation.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the dissent
  3. “[although an arrest is a deprivation of liberty and could in principle therefore be challenged under the Fourteenth Amendment without reference to the Fourth Amendment, the latter is a more specific regulation of arrests and searches and a plaintiff who cannot make a case under the Fourth Amendment will not be heard if he appeals to the principles of due process instead.... A false arrest falls squarely within the scope of the Fourth Amendment....”
    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.