Jones v. Fransen’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

3 federal appellate ·

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

1. “In the last five years, this Court has issued a number of opinions reversing federal courts in qualified immunity cases. The Court has found this necessary both because qualified immunity is important to society as a whole, and because as an immunity from suit, qualified immunity is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial. Today, it is again necessary to reiterate the longstanding principle that “clearly established law” should not be defined at a high level of generality. As this Court explained decades ago, the clearly established law must be “particularized” to the facts of the case. Otherwise, plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract rights.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gaines v. Wardynski

2. “the burden shifts to [Massie] to demonstrate that qualified immunity is inappropriate. To do that, [Massie] must show that, when viewed in the light most favorable to him, the facts demonstrate that [Gallimore] violated [Massie’s] constitutional right and that that right was “clearly established in light of the specific context of the case, not as a broad general proposition,” at the time of [Gal-limore’s] actions. [The Court] may decide these issues in either order, but, to survive a qualified immunity' defense, [Massie] must satisfy both showings.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Massie v. Cobb County

3. “First, the plaintiffs may show that a materially similar case has already been decided. Second, the plaintiffs can point to a broader, clearly established principle that should control the novel facts of the situation. Finally, the conduct involved in the case may so obviously violate the constitution that prior case law is unnecessary. Under controlling law, the plaintiffs must carry their burden by looking to the law as interpreted at the time by the United States Supreme Court, the Eleventh Circuit, or the [relevant State Supreme Court],”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. Gaines v. Wardynski