Malone v. Hinman’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

6 federal appellate · 2 district ·

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

1. “[w]e apply de novo review to the district court's grant of summary judgment to the defendants, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to [the plaintiffs] and drawing all reasonable inferences in [their] favor. A district court appropriately grants summary judgment to the movant if there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. An official is entitled to qualified immunity unless (1) the evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, establishes a violation of a constitutional or statutory right, and (2) the right was clearly established at the time of the violation.”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Zubrod v. Hoch · Nader v. City of Papillion

2. ““The reasonableness of a use of force turns on whether the officer’s actions were objectively reasonable in light of the facts and circumstances confronting him, without regard to his subjective intent or motivation. [Graham, 490 U.S. at] 397, 109 S.Ct. 1865 . We must consider the totality of the circumstances, including the severity of the crime at issue, whether the suspect poses an immediate threat to the safety of the officer or others, and whether the suspect is actively fleeing or resisting arrest. Id. at 396, 109 S.Ct. 1865 .””

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Zubrod v. Hoch · Church v. Anderson

3. “[s]ection 1983 liability for a constitutional violation may attach to a municipality if the violation resulted from ... an 'official municipal policy.' " Corwin v. City of Independence , 829 F.3d 695 , 699 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. , 436 U.S. 658 , 691, 98 S.Ct. 2018 , 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978) ). It follows that, absent a constitutional violation by a city employee, there can be no § 1983 or Monell liability for the City. See Malone v. Hinman , 847 F.3d 949 , 955 (8th Cir. 2017) ("Because we conclude that Officer Hinman did not violate Malone's constitutional rights, there can be no § 1983 or Monell liability on the part of Chief Thomas and the City.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Whitney v. City of St. Louis