Ford v. Childers’s Empirical Analysis
855 F.2d 1271 · 1988
Citation profile
26 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 52 later decisions — most recently January 2020 · most notably Smith v. Freland (1992), Bertha Boyd v. Matthew Baeppler (2000)
26 federal appellate · 4 district · 4 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))
Relies on Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. · Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Illinois v. Gates · Tennessee v. Garner · Darden v. Wainwright
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 52 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“According to the Supreme Court, while the use of deadly force is unreasonable if intended merely to prevent a felon’s escape, such force is reasonable if, based on the facts and circumstances known to the officer at the time, the officer has “probable cause” to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm to the officers or to others and, if feasible, warns the suspect____”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“because he reasonably believed that the suspect had committed a felony involving the threat of deadly force, was armed with a deadly weapon, and was likely to pose a danger of serious harm to others if not immediately apprehended”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“Our review of the record further confirms that Officer Childers warned [the plaintiff] on two separate occasions before the officers fired. ’ Officer Childers testified that he provided the warnings, calling “Halt, Police” twice before firing his service revolver. Considering that (1) the evidence established that at the time [the plaintiff] was wearing both a mask and a hood, which could very well have muffled the plaintiff’s opportunity to hear the warnings, and (2) the plaintiff did not testify that warnings were not given but only that he did not hear any warnings, [the plaintiff’s] testimony fails to contradict the officer’s positive testimony that he warned [the plaintiff] twice before firing a shot. Consequently, the plaintiffs testimony that he did not hear any warnings fails to present a question of material fact as to whether the giving of the warnings was feasible and if in fact they were given.”
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.