Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 85 F.3d 581 - Whiting v. Traylor

Whiting v. Traylor’s Empirical Analysis

85 F.3d 581 · 1996

Citation profile

115
cited by 115 later decisions
1
cited 1 times by the Supreme Court
1
states following
June 2025
most recently cited

48 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

How this case has been cited

Cited by 115 later decisions (1 by the Supreme Court) — most recently June 2025 · most notably Murphy v. Lynn (1997), Manuel v. City of Joliet (2017)

48 federal appellate · 3 district · 1 state decisions

5401996200020102020decided

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 Franks v. Delaware · Heck v. Humphrey · Baker v. McCollan · Albright v. Oliver · Singer v. Fulton County Sheriff

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

  1. “the kind of claim where the plaintiff, as part of the commencement of a criminal proceeding, has been unlawfully and forcibly restrained in violation of the Fourth Amendment and injuries, due to that seizure, follow as the prosecution goes ahead”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “[W]e think referring to a federal `right' to be free from malicious prosecution is actually a description of the right to be free from an unlawful seizure which is part of a prosecution.”
    4 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
  3. “[rjecovery of damages is limited to those injuries proved to be caused by the defendants. This lawsuit is against arresting officers. In many cases, arresting officers will not be responsible for the continuation of the prosecution because the prosecutor (or some other factor) will break the causal link between defendants’ conduct and plaintiffs injury.”
    2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the concurrence

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.