Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 859 F.2d 1411 - Perez v. Simmons

Perez v. Simmons’s Empirical Analysis

859 F.2d 1411 · 1988

Citation profile

5
cited by 5 later decisions
February 1989
most recently cited

2 federal appellate ·

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1291 · 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871 / Section 1983 (Ku Klux Klan Act))

Relies on Monell v. Department of Social Services of City of New York · Payton v. New York · Steagald v. United States · Sloan v. Hicks · Verderber v. Cantello Plumbing Corp.

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

  1. “within the meaning of Payton and Steagald. Here there was some evidence that Albert occasionally spent the night at Irma's home. 3 We must decide whether this temporary occupancy sufficed to make the apartment Albert's home as well so as to allow entry based on simply a warrant for Albert's arrest. The instructions to the jury stated that for purposes of determining Irma's Fourth Amendment rights, the search was legal if the police officers had reasonable cause to believe that Irma's apartment was”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Perez v. Simmons
  2. “testified that they believed, as a result of their training and indoctrination as to department policy, that a search of a third-party home was legal if the subject of the arrest warrant had been staying temporarily at the residence.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Gobel v. Maricopa County
  3. “no written guidelines on searching a third person's home in which the subject of an arrest warrant is believed to be staying”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
    e.g. Gobel v. Maricopa County

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.