Abshire v. Walls’s Empirical Analysis
830 F.2d 1277 · 1987
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 2 district · 1 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 26 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2015 · most notably Green v. Bock Laundry MacHine Co. (1989), Johnson v. Hugo's Skateway (1992)
6 federal appellate · 2 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. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act)) · 42 U.S.C. § 1985 · 42 U.S.C. § 1988
Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Hensley v. Eckerhart · Bell v. Wolfish · Wood v. Strickland · Bibby v. United States
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 26 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“Abshire’s claims were based on different legal theories, but they all arose from a “common core of facts.” The facts surrounding Abshire’s strip search were inextricably intertwined with the facts surrounding his initial confrontation with the police, his arrest and later imprisonment. In our view, it is impossible to isolate the inquiry into the constitutionality of the strip search from the other facts. Abshire’s attorney could not have presented the constitutional aspects of this case without developing and presenting the facts surrounding the entire sequence of events that transpired on the morning of [Abshire’s arrest]., The court’s award of attorneys’ fees must therefore be vacated and ... the case remanded....”
5 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[m]uch of counsel’s time will be devoted generally to the litigation as a whole, making it difficult to divide the hours expended on a elaim-by-claim basis. Such a lawsuit cannot be viewed as a series of discrete claims. Instead, the district court should focus on the significance of the overall relief obtained by the plaintiff in relation to the hours reasonably expended in the litigation.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“At the police station, Abshire was processed and then handcuffed to a railing. He testified that he made numerous requests to use the telephone, all of which were denied. He also testified that after one such request Officer Kraeh approached him and told him to “be quiet or I will have you unhandcuffed and have the boys have a go around with you around back.” After Abshire responded indignantly, Krach said “lets strip search him.” Abshire was then unhand-cuffed and escorted to a utility room, where he was forced to disrobe and subject himself to a strip search by Officers Walls and Queen. Abshire testified that a number of other officers were also present in the room and observed the search. After the search, Abshire was placed in a cell until he was released on his own recognizance following a bail hearing later that day.”
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.